Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the County of York, West Riding (Sowerby Division), in the room of John William Belcher, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Whiteley.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether records are kept of corporal punishment inflicted on young sailors in the Royal Navy; whether they are examined by his Department; and what form these punishments take.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Records of the caning of boys, to which I presume this Question refers, are included in the quarterly returns of punishments rendered by each ship and establishment. These are examined in the Admiralty, but not with particular reference to caning. Commanders-in-Chief are under instructions, before forwarding the returns to the Admiralty, to investigate any returns where the number of canings seems unduly high, or any entry in the daily record where a punishment of caning seems to have been awarded for an offence of insufficient gravity. This punishment is inflicted with a light and ordinary cane, and the offender wears trousers and pants.

Mr. McGovern: Can the hon. Gentleman state whether or not this punishment is inflicted in the presence of the members of the crews of ships or in barracks? Is it public?

Mr. Edwards: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice, but I am rather of the opinion that what the

hon. Member appears to suggest is not the case.

Mr. Evans: Is there an upper age limit for the infliction of this punishment?

Mr. Edwards: The highest age limit is 18, but most of the boys have been rated above that age and therefore they do not come within the punishment.

Air Gunnery Duties

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether he is satisfied that air engineer officers are competent and qualified to carry out the duties of air gunnery officers;
(2) what course is being taken by air engineer officers to qualify them to perform the duties of air gunnery officers; how many qualified air gunnery officers are at present serving; and how many air engineer officers have taken the full qualifying course;
(3) what qualifications are possessed by officers performing air gunnery duties in H.M.S. "Vengeance"; and whether a fully qualified air gunnery officer is to be carried by this ship during her arctic operating tests.

Mr. W. Edwards: Owing to the development of weapons in naval aircraft the duties laid down for the air gunnery officer became too complex to be undertaken by an officer engaged in aircrew duties without interfering with his flying career. It was decided in 1947 that the duties then performed by air gunnery officers should be split up and that the air engineer officer should be responsible for the maintenance and repair of ordnance equipment in naval aircraft. This is, of course, only a part of the duties which hitherto had been the responsibility of the air gunnery officer. It has also been decided to introduce an air weapons officer to carry out the duties of the air gunnery officer in advising on the tactical use of weapons, and steps are being taken to enable suitable air gunnery officers to convert to air weapons officers.
Arrangements have been made for all air engineer officers to do a course of one month in air ordnance. A number of air engineer officers will, however, be given a two months' course for the purpose of filling the more specialised appointments, after which they are sent


to air stations to gain more intimate experience of the work. I am satisfied that with this training they are competent to carry out these duties. One hundred and twenty-two air engineer officers have completed the short course and twelve have completed the long course. There are 41 qualified air gunnery officers at present serving. A fully qualified air gunnery officer is borne in H.M.S. "Vengeance" and will remain there for the Arctic tour.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he is going to arrange to achieve that very desirable position whereby officers experienced in ordnance are also capable of flying aircraft? What will be the position in the case of air engineer officers who will not necessarily be flying officers?

Mr. Edwards: The air engineer officer is only undertaking a small section of the duties previously undertaken by the air gunnery officer. The air weapon officer will be the man who will be doing most of the flying.

Research Ship

Captain Marsden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Admiralty to complete the construction and fitting-out of H.M.S. "Research"; and for what purpose she is to be used.

Mr. W. Edwards: The question of completing the Royal Research Ship "Research" has been considered at frequent intervals since the end of the war, but, in view of other commitments which the Admiralty feel bound to regard as of greater importance and urgency, it has not been found possible to authorise resumption of work on the vessel. The main purpose of the "Research" when completed would be to undertake magnetic surveys and to make oceanographical and meteorological observations.

Captain Marsden: Does not the Civil Lord realise that these surveys are even more necessary now than they were 10 years ago; and will not some of the tremendous Admiralty Vote be used in completing this ship for the purpose for which she was intended?

Sir Ronald Ross: Does not the Civil Lord think that this ship, on which so

much money has been spent, and which is to fulfil a vital service, should be completed and put to use rather than left lying rotting in the dock and wasting all this money?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot admit for a moment that she is lying rotting in the dock, because she is being preserved at the present time. After weighing up all the conclusions the Admiralty have come to the opinion that this must wait for a little longer.

Civilian Doctors

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty by what means naval officers and ratings are made aware of the identity of Admiralty surgeons and agents who are civilian doctors with whom the Admiralty has made arrangements for the treatment of naval personnel when they are on leave.

Mr. W. Edwards: The names and addresses of Admiralty surgeons and agents are published in Admiralty Fleet Orders. A list is displayed on the notice boards of all H.M. ships and naval establishments at home. All ratings' leave tickets instruct them to consult this list before proceeding on leave.

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the conditions under which the Admiralty pay the fees of civilian doctors for attendance on ratings on leave, and reimburse officers for expenses which they have incurred on leave, where circumstances are such that they are unable to consult an Admiralty surgeon and agent.

Mr. W. Edwards: The naval authorities should be informed as soon as possible that private treatment is being given, and they should be kept informed of the progress of the case. The naval medical authorities or the Admiralty surgeon and agent should be given the opportunity of taking over treatment as soon as circumstances permit. It is also necessary that the charges should be accepted as fair and reasonable.

Mr. Lewis: In an emergency, when an officer or rating has to go to a doctor, does the doctor apply to the Admiralty for the fee, or does he charge the man and leave it to the man himself to apply for reimbursement?

Mr. Edwards: For ratings the surgeon has to make the application. For officers, the officers themselves make their own application to the Admiralty for any expenses they incur.

Plain Clothes (Fleet Order)

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what date the Admiralty Fleet Order permitting plain clothes to be worn by ratings outside barracks was issued.

Mr. W. Edwards: The Admiralty Fleet Order was issued on 30th May, 1947.

Mr. Lewis: Does that Admiralty Fleet Order make it possible for naval personnel to wear plain clothes outside the barracks?

Mr. Edwards: I think the position is perfectly clear. The Question asks when the order permitting the wearing of plain clothes by ratings outside barracks was issued, and the answer is that the Admiralty Fleet Order was issued in 1947.

Officers' Widows (Pensions)

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement as to the award of pensions to the widows of Naval officers.

Mr. W. Edwards: I regret that I am not in a position to make a statement.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Question was asked six months ago; and can he give any indication of when he will be able to make a statement? It has taken some considerable time for the Admiralty to make up their minds about it.

Mr. Edwards: I am aware that the question was asked some time ago, but this is really not a matter which concerns the Admiralty alone: it is an inter-Service matter. While I regret the delay, all I can say is that it will have to be gone into for Service agreement with other bodies before we can make any statement.

Mr. Medland: Could the Civil Lord inform the House whether there is any obstruction by the Treasury?

Mr. Edwards: No, I could not say that the Treasury are at the moment obstructing in any way at all.

Factory, Port Glasgow

Mr. Scollan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why Messrs. Anderson and Steel of Greenock, who applied for a let of a small factory at Bay Yard, Port Glasgow, after negotiations between the Industrial Estates, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Works, and the Admiralty are still waiting for a decision after eight months; and if he will now let this factory to this firm.

Mr. W. Edwards: As I have recently informed my hon. Friend in correspondence, the question of the purchase of this property for industrial development purposes is under consideration by the Board of Trade, and an early decision is expected. In the meantime, the Admiralty's wartime requisition of the property is being continued on behalf of the Board of Trade, and the occupation of any part of the premises by Messrs. Anderson and Steel cannot be authorised in anticipation of the decision regarding the future use of the premises.

Mr. Scollan: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the first instance this firm were sent to the Industrial Estates people, who took them over the factory and agreed to let it at £130 a year; that the Board of Trade then stopped them and passed the matter on to the Admiralty, who passed it on to the Ministry of Works; is he further aware that this factory could be used; and what is stopping the letting of it?

Mr. Edwards: Well, I am not responsible for decisions taken by the Board of Trade. All I can say is that this property is on requisition by the Admiralty, and that the Admiralty are prepared to derequisition it as soon as the Board of Trade make up their minds.

Commander Galbraith: Flow long is it since this factory was actually used by the Admiralty?

Mr. Scollan: Over 12 months.

Mr. Edwards: The question has been answered: over 12 months. But it is because of the request of the Board of


Trade, who were hoping to set up an industrial estate there, that we have been holding on to it.

R.N.V.R. (Irishmen)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if his regulations permit Southern Irishmen resident in this country to be held eligible for service in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.

Mr. W. Edwards: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Tiffany: Is my hon. Friend aware that Southern Irishmen resident in this country have been denied entry to the Service on the ground that they were Southern Irishmen?

Mr. Edwards: I am not aware of that, but if my hon. Friend gives me any details I shall be glad to look into them.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the Civil Lord say whether this would involve amendment of the Foreign Enlistment Order?

Mr. Edwards: No, Sir.

Overseas Service (Leave)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why naval ratings serving overseas under the National Service Acts are allowed 28 days only for two years' service without home leave.

Mr. W. Edwards: National Service men in the Royal Navy receive the same annual allowance of leave as men on regular engagements. A man who has served abroad for two years may have had 28 days' leave on the station, and on return home would get, in addition, 48 days' foreign service leave. On release National Service men also receive terminal leave at the rate of one day for each month of service.

Mrs. Mann: Are foreign service leave and demobilisation leave permitted to run out before the actual demobilisation date?

Mr. Edwards: No, I do not think that is the case. A National Service man who has spent two years abroad would be entitled to 48 days' foreign service leave and 27 days' terminal leave, making 75 days for which he would receive pay.

Home Fleet (M.P.s' Visit)

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what opportunities there will be this year for Members of Parliament to visit the Fleet.

Mr. W. Edwards: I shall be glad to make arrangements for hon. Members to visit the Home Fleet should they so desire. There will be suitable opportunities during April and August while ships are giving leave in their home ports; or if hon. Members prefer, arrangements could be made for a visit during the latter half of May or the month of June when the Home Fleet is expected to be exercising in Scottish waters.

Sir R. Ross: I assume that this would be a collective visit and not individual visits?

Mr. Edwards: We would rather it was collective. We should not like to have people going there every day.

Captain Marsden: Could the Civil Lord arrange for these visits to be made to ships that are under way, so that we do not just have to look at them while they are in harbour?

Mr. Edwards: We will look at that when we see what requests come in.

Anti-Submarine Craft

Sir R. Ross: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is satisfied that there are sufficient anti-submarine craft of adequate speed to meet all probable eventualities.

Mr. W. Edwards: It is the policy of the Admiralty to ensure that, when the need arises, the Navy shall have sufficient vessels of all types to meet any likely threat.

Sir R. Ross: While accepting that admirable truism, may I ask whether the Civil Lord is not aware that the antisubmarine ships of the last war are now too slow for any possible war in which we may be engaged in the future, and that we may not get as much warning and time to build craft as we have had in the previous two wars?

Mr. Edwards: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have that very fully in mind, and steps are being taken to deal with that situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PLATTSMILLS:

14. To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in consequence of what provision and of which treaty or agreement is the United States submarine "Dogfish" to spend a month with the destroyer flotilla of the British Home Fleet; and whether he is satisfied that the security of the anti-submarine detection devices in the Firth of Clyde will not be compromised by the presence there of this warship of a foreign power.

Major Guy Lloyd: On a point of Order. I should like your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on whether Question 14 on the Order Paper is in Order, with such a scurrilous and ignoble motive attached to it. Is it right for such a Question to be put down on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The Question has been cancelled, so it is not before the House. Therefore, I know nothing about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kiosk, Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Postmaster-General when he will be in a position to instal further telephone kiosks on the New Parks Housing Estate, Leicester, in view of the fact that there is only one public kiosk available for the thousands of people now living on the estate.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): Additional telephone kiosks will be installed on the New Parks Housing Estate at Leicester about the end of the year, when underground cables have been laid. I regret that it will not be possible to carry out this work earlier, owing to the heavy demands on the engineering force in the Leicester area and to the restricted supply of cable for home use.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that this estate covers a very large area and people have great difficulty in making contacts outside, cannot the Postmaster-General provide something a little earlier, not only one kiosk but several?

Mr. Paling: I appreciate that it is a large area. It is necessary to put in this equipment, and we are making as much progress as we can.

Exchange Equipment, Chapel St. Leonards

Commander Maitland: asked the Postmaster-General when additional exchange equipment can be expected to be fitted at the Chapel St. Leonards, Lincolnshire, exchange, to supply the needs of farmers and other members of the public who have been waiting for telephones for long periods.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I hope that additional exchange equipment will be available at Chapel St. Leonards by the end of April, when the new automatic exchange now being installed should be ready for service.

Telephone Message (Disclosure)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a post office telephonist who was convicted and heavily fined for divulging the contents of telephone messages to a London newspaper; and whether any action is contemplated against the newspaper in question for receiving this information knowing that it had been improperly acquired by them.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I understand that newspapers often receive information by telephone from persons who are not regular correspondents. In this case the telephonist's activities came to light indirectly as a result of the newspaper's independent check on his message, and I accept the editor's assurance that his staff had no reason to think that the information had been improperly acquired.

Public Calls (Duration)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will restrict conversations in public telephone boxes to three minutes.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: The hon. Member's suggestion would involve the installation of special timing and control equipment for public call offices at all automatic exchanges, as well as modification of part of the equipment at manual exchanges. Its adoption would be impracticable under present conditions, in view of the restricted production of exchange equipment for home use.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Has the right hon. Gentleman never seen young men, with that daft look on their faces which always indicates something feminine at the other end of the wire, occupying telephone boxes for anything up to 10 minutes while half a dozen of His Majesty's lieges wait outside to use the machine for their lawful occasions; and could he not at least put up in the boxes some such notice as Please restrict your conversation to three minutes"; or "Is your conversation really necessary"?

Mr. Paling: We do that but unfortunately everyone does not take notice of them. To do what is suggested in the Question is a matter of equipment which we cannot supply at the moment.

Mr. Osborne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have quite sufficient restrictions already?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Letter Deliveries

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of business men is Glasgow and East Renfrewshire at the persistent delay in delivery of mails from London which are not delivered to the addressees until the afternoon of the day following posting in London; and whether he will take steps to expedite their delivery.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I much regret that, owing to late running, correspondence carried by the special mail train from London to Scotland is not now included in the first delivery in Glasgow and East Renfrewshire. Correspondence for Glasgow is necessarily included in the delivery beginning at 11.30 a.m. Everything practicable is being done, in close collaboration with the Railway Executive, to bring about such improvement as will permit correspondence carried by this mail train to be delivered by first delivery in Glasgow.

Major Lloyd: While not in any way imputing any sort of blame to the Postmaster-General or to his Department, is the right. hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of thousands of business men and other people in Glasgow are gravely inconvenienced by this, and may I, on their behalf, ask him to use his utmost

influence with the railways to see that trains arrive at least within two or three hours of the times scheduled?

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction in south-east London with the late delivery of mail in the morning; and if this cannot be remedied, if he will consider a later night collection.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction such as is suggested. I understand the first delivery of letters in south-east London is normally completed within the present standard time, namely, 9 a.m. To complete the delivery earlier or to provide a later final collection would necessitate additional calls on manpower which cannot be justified in present circumstances.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the Postmaster-General aware that a considerable amount of mail is delivered after nine o'clock when many people have left their homes, and that if the last collection has gone before they get back it means a day's delay?

Mr. Paling: I am told that that happens on very few occasions. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Oh."] At least, we have had very few complaints.

Captain Crookshank: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that there is grave dissatisfaction everywhere about the lateness of the first delivery in the mornings, not only in this part of London but everywhere? Surely he is quite wrong when he says that he does not know about it.

Mr. Paling: I still stick to my answer that we are not aware of any widespread dissatisfaction.

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Postmaster-General how many postal deliveries there are in Brighton on a weekday, and what is the latest delivery; how these deliveries compare with those in towns in Great Britain of similar size; and what is the latest time on any one day when a letter can be posted in London guaranteed to be delivered in Brighton next morning by first post, and the latest to be delivered by the second post.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Brighton, in common with all provincial towns, has


two deliveries of letters on weekdays. The second letter delivery in provincial towns commences generally in the forenoon; at Brighton at 11 a.m. Posting times in London for first delivery in Brighton on the following weekday are: 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. in street letter boxes; 6.45 p.m. to 7 p.m. at sub-district post offices; 8 p.m. at head district post offices. On Sundays the corresponding times are: 4.15 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., 4.45 p.m. to 5 p.m., and 6 p.m., respectively. Late fee letters for first delivery in Brighton on the following weekday can be posted at London Bridge Station up to 11.50 p.m. Monday to Friday, and up to 9.5 p.m. on Sundays. Letters intended for the second delivery in Brighton can be posted at the London Chief Office, King Edward Street, or at the Mount Pleasant Post Office, up to 6.30 a.m.

Mr. Teeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, when it takes only an hour to go down to Brighton by train, all this extra time is taken with letters?

Mr. Keeling: rose——

Mr. Teeling: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be allowed time to reply to my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) wants first to put a supplementary question to the supplementary question of the hon. Member.

Mr. Keeling: Will not the Postmaster-General add that any member of the public who walks into the Outer Lobby while the House is sitting can post a letter up to 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. and get it delivered in Brighton first thing in the morning?

Mr. Teeling: asked the Postmaster-General by how many have the number of post office workers, employed directly or indirectly in the delivery of letters in Brighton, been increased in the last six months.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: None, Sir.

Mr. Teeling: At a time when Brighton has some 3,000 unemployed and there is this dissatisfaction in the town about the appallingly bad deliveries from London, cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something to help the Minister of Labour to

find employment for some of these people in the postal service?

Mr. Paling: I do not agree that there is great dissatisfaction in the town. There are plenty of jobs in the country at the present time for the unemployed in the towns.

Air-Mail (Surcharges)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Postmaster-General why letters to the U.S.S.R. and other Communist-controlled countries are sent by air without surcharge while letters sent by air to Western Germany and Berlin incur a postage rate 50 per cent. higher.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Owing to the exceptionally large proportion of "gift," as compared with ordinary, traffic for Germany and Poland, it has not so far been a practical proposition to provide unsurcharged air services to these countries. I am reviewing the position and will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Keeling: Does not the Postmaster-General agree that it is really Gilbertian that letters should be sent to the other side of the iron curtain by aircraft flying over Western Germany at a lower rate than letters sent to Western Germany itself?

Mr. Paling: There were reasons why these exceptions were made, but, as I have said, I am looking into it.

Mails, Island of Coll

Major McCallum: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make arrangements for mails to be despatched to and from the Island of Coll by aircraft which are already flying there under charter to collect perishable food supplies for Glasgow merchants when the weather is too bad to permit of calls by the steamer serving the island.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

Major McCallum: Will the Postmaster-General press the Minister of Civil Aviation to see if an air service cannot be run to this island?

Mr. Paling: If it is possible to do anything in this direction I shall do it.

Savings Bank Deposits (Limit)

Sir Robert Young: asked the Postmaster-General whether depositors in the General Post Office Savings Bank having reached the limits of deposits are still allowed to have their investment dividends sent direct to the bank by building societies, etc.; and whether these amounts of investment interest are acknowledged as at present, credited to the depositor's account with the additional interest from the bank over the amount due on the permitted limit of deposit.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Under the Savings Bank (Limit of Deposits) Order, 1946, the limits of amounts of deposits do not operate to prevent the crediting to the account of a depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank of dividends on Government stock and bonds held by him on the Post Office Register. Other dividends are not so exempted.

Sir R. Young: Does that mean that for other dividends a statement is sent that the dividend has been received and must be withdrawn?

Mr. Paling: I take it that that is the procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION (PROPAGANDA)

Mr. Orr-Ewing: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he takes to see that the television section of the British Broadcasting Corporation is not used for party political propaganda.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: The Government relys upon the B.B.C. to treat controversial subjects with complete impartiality. This applies equally to the sound and television services.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In that case, will the Postmaster-General tell us how it is that a book called "The Triple Challenge," which is supposed to be the history of the present Socialist Government, the author of which was until recently political adviser to the Prime Minister, has been the first book selected to be televised?

Mr. Paling: I do not know about that. I think that on the whole the B.B.C. are doing a pretty good job. I

receive complaints from both sides, first, that there is too much Tory propaganda and, secondly, that there is too much Socialist propaganda.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Premises, St. James's Street

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total area in square feet, and the rental value of property in St. James's Street occupied by his Department and used as a booking office.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The total area of this property is 6,820 square feet, and the rental is £7,050 per annum.

Mr. Vane: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that not only is it very expensive but also inconvenient to have a booking centre at this street; and could not he find a more convenient place near one of the main line stations, and at a quarter of the cost?

Mr. Henderson: I certainly think it is expensive. As regards the second part of the Question, I am advised it is considered to be most convenient, and certainly extremely useful.

Mr. Vane: For what purpose is it convenient?

W.R.A.F. (Detention Sentences)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he authorised the declaration made by the Director of the W.R.A.F., that punishment for women will be the same as for men; that there is to be provision for the detention of women members of the Forces; and whether special military detention prisons are to be established for women.

Mr. A. Henderson: In her statement the Director explained that members of the Women's Royal Air Force are now subject to the Air Force Act with certain modifications. They may be awarded detention but not field punishment. While the building of special detention barracks is not contemplated, consideration is being given to the most appropriate place in which a service woman can serve a sentence of detention.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister satisfied that these measures for stricter discipline are really necessary, and can he assure us there will be nothing in the nature of glasshouses for ladies.

Mr. Henderson: I am quite sure that my hon. Friend is a believer in sex equality, and in view of the fact that we are integrating the women's services with the men's services, it is not inconsistent to provide punishments for women as we do for men.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Are we to understand from the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government have substituted a policy of equal punishment for men and women instead of equal pay?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. There is not a complete integration either as regards payment or as regards punishment, as I indicated in my first reply.

Mr. Gallacher: Are we to take it from the reply of the Secretary of State that equal punishment will include corporal punishment for women?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir.

Accidents

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many accidents to Royal Air Force aircraft have taken place since 1st January, 1949; how much loss of life was involved; and how do these figures compare with those in 1948.

Mr. A. Henderson: Between 1st January and 19th February, 1949, there were 23 accidents to Royal Air Force aircraft in which lives were lost. The total number of deaths was 53. The figures for the same period in 1948 were 17 and 31, respectively.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. and learned-Gentleman say that the maintenance side of the Royal Air Force and the training are responsible for this?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir, I do not think that we can draw any such inference from these statistics, and I may say that the figures in relation to three months of this year have to have regard to our increased commitments necessitated by the Berlin air lift.

Czech Nationals, Cardington

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Czech nationals are stationed at Cardington; what ranks did they hold in the Royal Air Force when they were serving during the war; and what are their present ranks.

Mr. A. Henderson: Thirty-three Czech nationals are stationed at Cardington. They are volunteers for service in the R.A.F. and, pending selection and posting as short service commissioned officers, aircrew or tradesmen, hold the rank of Aircraftman 2nd Class. Eighteen of these men have passed the Selection Boards and await posting. During the war these men served in the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, one as a Group Captain, two as Wing Commanders, four as Squadron Leaders, 13 as junior officers, four as Warrant Officers, eight as N.C.Os. and one as an aircraftman.

Air-Commander Harvey: While appreciating the intention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman may I ask him if he will expedite that policy in order to give these men something approaching their war rank as soon as possible?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. Of the total number of 148, I think 12 or 13 remain to he dealt with.

Aircraft Maintenance Grades

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, on closing down 18 Maintenance Unit, he will offer similar employment elsewhere to all Air Ministry civilian employees who have received training and hold qualifications in aircraft maintenance, irrespective of the trade union to which they may belong.

Mr. A. Henderson: It has been decided that No. 18 Maintenance Unit shall not be closed down, but is to change its functions and become a sub site of No. 14 Maintenance Unit, Carlisle, an aircraft equipment depot. It is expected that the reconstituted unit will be able to absorb a number of semi-skilled and unskilled grades now employed. But I regret that there is no prospect of the aircraft maintenance grades being retained. I am, however, communicating with the Ministry of Labour with a view to finding them alternative employment. In


addition, we have a limited number of vacancies for fully skilled workers at other Air Ministry units and these will, so far as possible, be offered to fully skilled men who may become redundant at No. 18 Maintenance Unit.

Mr. Macpherson: As many of these skilled men have nine or ten years' experience of aircraft maintenance at great expenditure of public money, is it not common sense to find them jobs elsewhere in aeronautical engineering?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. I said that I was communicating with the Ministry of Labour in the hope that it might be possible to do something.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it not a fact that there are trained Air Force personnel on the maintenance side who can do the jobs that the civilians do; and is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to get rid of these civilians, because they are not part of the Air Force regular personnel?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. This particular difficulty has arisen because of the change of function at this particular depot.

Photographic Section

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the number of personnel employed in the Air Ministry Photographic Section; how many trips have been made during the last three months to obtain photographs in Germany of the airlift; what is the total number of photographs taken and the estimated cost of the various special trips for taking these photographs; and what steps are taken to ensure that all those employed are fully occupied and that there is no unnecessary waste in photographic equipment and materials.

Mr. A. Henderson: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the photographic section of the Information Division. Sixteen persons are employed in it. A visit to Germany to photograph the airlift was last made at the beginning of November. Eighty photographs were taken. The cost of the visit was about £60. The activities of the section are subject to normal establishment and financial control and independent audit.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on a recent air trip, undertaken especially to make further photographs of the airlift, none of the photographs came out because of mishandling of the cameras? Is he aware of the charge being made, and of the present waste of equipment and material, and will he have this matter looked into?

Mr. Henderson: This is the first I have heard of it, and I will certainly inquire into the allegations of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (PROPOSED SECRET SESSION)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the present world situation and the increasing cost of the Fighting Services, he will reconsider his previous decision not to hold a Secret Session of Parliament.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I see no sufficient reason in present circumstances to vary the decision announced in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member's Question on 1st December, 1948.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the fact that very large sums of money are being spent on the fighting Services, will the right hon. Gentleman see that this House is given more information for the Estimates Debates than we had last year?

The Prime Minister: I have looked into this matter, and the House will be given the fullest information that is possible consonant with the security of the country.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not clear from the existence of Questions such as No. 14 on the Order Paper today that a Secret Session of this House would have a very limited value from a security point of view?

Major Lloyd: Is the Prime Minister also aware that a great many people, who disagree with him on everything else, entirely agree with his decision in this matter inasmuch as certain Members of this House could not be trusted in a Secret Session?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. In view of that question and the implication made by the hon. and gallant


Member for Eastern Renfrew (Major Lloyd), am I not entitled to draw attention to the fact that the only people who have been suspected or have been guilty of leakage during a Secret Session have been on the other side of the House, and that the leakages have been to the Press of the other side.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: Am I not entitled to draw attention to that fact?

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Mr. Grey: asked the Lord President of the Council why the North-east of England with its dense population and concentrated industry has been omitted from the scheme to celebrate the Festival of Britain in 1951; and whether he will take steps to rectify this omission.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): It is not correct that the North-east has been omitted from the Festival of Britain scheme. Newcastle-upon-Tyne is one of the small number of cities to be visited by the Travelling Exhibition of the Festival; and York has been invited to co-operate as a centre for one of the official Festivals of the arts. The North-east of England is free to promote other celebrations in 1951. The advice of the Festival of Britain Office and of the Arts Council and other bodies concerned in the Festival will be available for this purpose.

Mr. Grey: Has the Lord President of the Council ever heard of a city called Durham?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that Durham has been considering activities. It must be understood that the national organisation cannot itself take responsibility for every city in the land, but it is taking some responsibility for a number. However, I rely a good deal on local initiative and the self-expression of the localities themselves. That is more in accordance with our democracy than universal State umbrellas.

Mr. Wilkes: Can the Lord President of the Council say how long it is intended that this exhibition should be shown in Newcastle?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I could not.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Uniform Allowance

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Defence if he is prepared to authorise the full grant of £50 uniform allowance to non-regular officers commissioned after 3rd November, 1948, who can prove to him that, before his statement of 19th January, 1949, they had ordered uniform costing more than £29.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Yes, Sir.

Services Mission, Burma

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Defence if he is satisfied that the British military mission in Burma is fulfilling any useful purpose; and what instructions have been issued to them to prevent their being involved in a civil war.

Mr. Alexander: The British Services Mission have done, and are doing, useful work in the difficult conditions now prevailing in Burma. The directive issued to the Head of the Mission provides that its functions are purely advisory.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what good work the Mission can possibly be doing in a country which is in a state of chaos? What guarantee can he give the House that the Mission will not be involved indirectly, if not directly, in a civil war against the Karens?

Mr. Alexander: As regards the last point, the actual wording of the directive to them provides that they are in a purely advisory capacity. As to the first part of the supplementary question, I am quite satisfied that in the difficult circumstances the Mission is faithfully and properly carrying out our agreement with the Burmese Government.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whom the Mission are actually meant to advise?

Mr. Alexander: Under the agreement with the Burmese Government they advise the Burmese Government.

Jet Engine Exports (Security Arrangements)

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will consult with the Chiefs of Staff Committee in order to


solve the problem created by the invention and development of several jet engines, which, in due course, will come off the secret list, in order to ensure that certain jet developments remain, so far as is practicable, secret, and that in no circumstances can they be sold to any foreign Power, except one in close, friendly and permanently harmonious relations with His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alexander: I am satisfied that the present security arrangements are adequate. Even when no longer on the secret list these engines are subject to export control and their export is restricted as necessary to comply with security requirements.

Mr. Donner: In view of the reversal of policy announced on Monday whereby we are not to sell any more jet engines to Russia, can the right hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that the measures which are being taken to protect our latest types and developments are really effective?

Mr. Alexander: I have already said that we have been into the matter and are satisfied that the security arrangements adopted are satisfactory.

Recruiting Campaigns (Cost)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Defence what was the total expenditure on recruiting campaigns in 1948; and what was the cost per recruit obtained.

Mr. Alexander: The figures requested by my hon. Friend are being worked out and I will communicate with him when they are available.

Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend look into the question of the cost of some of these recruiting displays; and will he tell us what disciplinary action he is taking against the Secretary of State for War for speeches calculated to hinder recruiting?

Mr. Alexander: The question put by my hon. Friend raises an administrative matter for which the Service Ministers themselves are responsible to the House.

Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some recruiting areas the cost per head for recruits

amounts to nearly £8? Does he not think that a more practical demonstration of goodwill by the Government to the Territorial Army by providing proper equipment and accommodation would be better than many of these social functions?

Mr. Alexander: I should say that that ought to be raised on the Estimates of the War Department. I would say at once, however, that there might be some local circumstance of the kind which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned but the general cost over the country is certainly nowhere in the region of that figure.

Courts Martial (Procedure)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence what action is being taken to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Army and Air Force Courts Martial Committee.

Mr. Alexander: I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.

Service Lists (Publication)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Defence when the Navy List, the Army List and the Air Force List will again be made available for the public; and if copies will be provided for Members of this House.

Mr. Alexander: Service Lists, which are in future to be published on an annual basis, will be placed on sale in the early summer. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Barley

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food what are the present stocks of imported and home produced barley; whether he is satisfied that no serious deterioration is taking place; and if he will release extra quantities at once to pig producers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): It would not be in the national interest to disclose the figures of imported stocks, but for the Ministry's stocks of home grown barley on 3rd February I


would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Orpington on 14th February. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." With regard to the third part, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, is not prepared to increase ration issues of animal feedingstuffs at this time because he is not satisfied that an increased ration could be maintained.

Mr. Osborne: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that members of pig clubs who see all this barley lying idle in the country feel that they could put it to better use than is the case at present? Surely she should give them a chance to use it and to produce the pork which is required?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman sees only a little of the barley while we see it all, and we know exactly how much we have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then tell us."] The facts are that the animal feedingstuffs which we have in stock now are enough to maintain our present rations until September, 1949, and no longer.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The right hon. Lady says that it would not be in the public interest to disclose stocks. That is not a phrase which should be used lightly or an attitude which should be adopted lightly. Can the right hon. Lady say what public interests are affected?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, Sir, the interests of the taxpayers of this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have some business knowledge must realise—I have said this time after time—that when we enter into transactions with people abroad, it would be very stupid and certainly not in the interests of this country if we disclosed our stocks.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: From that point of view, can the right hon. Lady say what is the difference between telling the prospective seller overseas, as she has just done, that we shall run out of stock in September this year and telling this House the actual amount?

Dr. Summerskill: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Question and the figures which we have given before, he will see that we have not disclosed how much imported foodstuffs we have in this country but have only disclosed

home produced stocks, which is an entirely different matter.

Lord William Scott: asked the Minister of Food why he recently purchased from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 5,500,000 quarters of barley at a time when there is a glut of homegrown barley; and whether the price was in the region of 126s. a quarter in that country.

Dr. Summerskill: My Department has bought no barley from Russia since December, 1947, when the price paid was substantially less than that quoted by the hon. Member.

Potatoes

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of potatoes were sold in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st March, 1947; how many tons were sold for delivery abroad; and to what countries principally did they go.

Dr. Summerskill: In the year ended 31st March, 1947, 6,612,000 tons of ware and seed were sold in the United Kingdom and 133,659 tons were exported, principally to France, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands and Germany.

Mr. Osborne: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House whether we made a profit or a loss on these sales abroad, and, if so, how much?

Dr. Summerskill: That is another question.

Mr. Osborne: I want to know the answer, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice——

Mr. Speaker: Surely, if it is another question, it can be put down on the Order Paper?

Mr. Osborne: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I merely wished to say that because the answer was so unsatisfactory, I should like to have the opportunity of raising the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the fact that the basis whereon potato tonnages are handled by agents dates back to the period 1st June, 1938–31st May, 1939, he will now, in the light of post-war experience, institute an inquiry into the section trade adviser system of control.

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension as to the duties of these people. The work done by agents—which involves inspection of farm stocks, negotiation of contracts and ancillary duties—is not allocated on any datum basis but is passed to the agent best situated to do the particular job. Section trade advisers have the duty in some areas to supervise the work of these agents, and in those areas and elsewhere they act as expert advisers on potato problems.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the section trade advisers in many cases have made a good business out of this and have obtained a great deal of business which was previously in the hands of merchants whom they are now responsible for administering? Will she do something to prevent this ever-growing bureaucracy from throttling existing merchants?

Dr. Summerskill: I think these generalisations are a little unfair to these men who have served us well for many years. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me the name of a person who is abusing his powers, I will certainly make an inquiry.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the amount of business now in the hands of section trade advisers is vastly greater than it was when this system came into operation, and that a great many merchants are being forced out of business by her bureaucracy?

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food what were the separate acreage figures for the Isle of Ely and Holland areas of Royal Kidney potatoes grown this season; what was the average yield per acre; and how much of each crop remains to be disposed of.

Dr. Summerskill: Two hundred and seventy and 283 acres respectively. The average yield per acre was estimated to be 7.8 tons. I regret that as farmers are not required to make returns of their stocks by varieties the information required in the last part of the Question is not available.

Major Legge-Bourke: Could it be made clear to the House exactly what the position is about these potatoes? When I had a conversation with the right

hon. Lady in this House—at her suggestion—she told me there were 14,500 tons of these potatoes from this area. Last week her right hon. Friend told me there were 4,500. Now how many are there?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows full well that the amount changes because, as he suggested to me, the growers want to export them to Spain, and no doubt that is why there is a discrepancy in the amounts.

Mr. Solley: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker Although my right hon. Friend has not taken the point, it is one on which I would like your Ruling. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to what was apparently a private conversation between himself——

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of Order?

Mr. Solley: The point of Order is whether it is right for an hon. Member to make public, information which he has received during the course of a private conversation.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not in Order to refer to a conversation which had been asked for by the right hon. Lady herself in this House?

Dr. Summerskill: May I clear up this matter, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps the House will remember that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a little confused the week before last, and I said I would see him behind your Chair. I think we were not far away from you Mr. Speaker—and it was quite open to anybody to listen in.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is there anything particularly compromising in having a conversation with the right hon. Lady?

Dr. Summerskill: I should not like to think so.

Tea

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of tea was sold in the United Kingdom and how much for delivery abroad for the year ended 31st March, 1947; and to what countries principally was it sold.

Dr. Summerskill: For the year ended 31st March, 1947, 472 million lb. of tea were sold in the United Kingdom, of which 36 million lb. were re-exported, principally to Eire, Holland, Denmark


and Belgium. At that period the United Kingdom bought for the other countries under arrangements made by the I.E.F.C.

Mr. Osborne: May I again ask the right hon. Lady if this House is not entitled to know whether this was sold at a profit or a loss, and, if so, how much?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, Sir. The hon. Gentleman knows that I never disappoint him. If he cares to put a Question on the Order Paper, I shall be only too happy to answer him.

Oats

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that large quantities of oats in the North of Scotland are unsold; and what steps are being taken to alleviate this position.

Dr. Summerskill: As my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perth (Mr. Snadden) on 14th February, we are prepared to buy, at the guaranteed price, all the sound oats offered to my Department.

Mr. Boothby: Arising out of that answer, and in view of the glut of oats which undoubtedly exists at the moment, will the right hon. Lady give serious consideration to the possibility of taking oats off coupons in the near future?

Dr. Summerskill: I would not say there was a glut of oats. There can never be a glut of oats when feedingstuffs of any kind are in short supply. We are prepared to buy any oats that the farmers offer us.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Lady bear in mind that there is a glut in so far as they cannot get rid of the oats? It is possible that at the other end there may be an opening, but the millers are stocked up, and therefore the producers of oats cannot get rid of their stocks.

Dr. Summerskill: There is only a glut in so far as they want the maximum price.

Feedingstuffs

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the reluctance of farmers to purchase potato flakes so long as they remain on

coupons; and if, in view of the increasing supplies of this feedingstuff, he will take it off coupons.

Dr. Summerskill: I have not heard of farmers being reluctant to take these feedingstuffs, and I cannot agree to deration dried potato products.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is not a question of farmers not wanting them, but that they are not prepared to give coupons for them when coupons are wanted for other more valuable feedingstuffs? Is she aware that this type is accumulating, and that unless she does something about it there will be a complete waste of these valuable feedingstuffs.

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would give me details? I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and he said that no farmer has complained.

Pig Sales Orders (Officers)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food how many authorised officers have been appointed under the Pig (Sales) Order, 1948.

Dr. Summerskill: Appointments as authorised officer or as a deputy were made at 554 store pig markets in Great Britain.

Imported Grain (Storage)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of imported grain is at present stored in the 54 aerodromes used by his Department; and how frequently, and by whom, inspections are made of this grain.

Dr. Summerskill: Approximately 190,000 tons of imported grain are at present stored in the 54 aerodromes. In addition to monthly inspections made by Ministry of Food warehouse inspectors, the stores are regularly visited by port area grain committee inspectors and infestation officers attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. Turton: Is there any co-ordination between these two visitations?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman means co-ordination between the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and mine, yes, there certainly is.

Mr. Nicholson: Is it not a fact that these stores are regularly visited by rats and mice?

Orders (Penalties)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Food how many orders which carry penalties are now operative under his Department; and if he can give an assurance that all of these have been printed and are available to the public.

Dr. Summerskill: There are in current operation 178 orders which carry penalties. All have been printed and are available to the public.

Mr. Bossom: Would the right hon. Lady have these all put in the Library so that we may look them over at one time?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman likes to visit the Library this afternoon, he will see them.

Australian Rabbits (Imports)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Minister of Food in what quantities he is importing frozen rabbits from Australia.

Dr. Summerskill: We asked Australia to send the largest possible quantity of rabbits, and I am glad to say that some 27,000 tons or about 1,000,000 cases were imported in 1948. We expect that a similar quantity will be available this year.

Mr. Taylor: Would it not be possible to step up the import of these rabbits from Australia, and is the right hon. Lady sure that she is getting as many as can be got?

Dr. Summerskill: They are stepped up. These are about four times as many as came here in 1939.

Sheep (Slaughter)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the cruelty involved, he will take steps to prevent sheep in lamb from being sent for slaughter in abattoirs.

Dr. Summerskill: The standing instructions to the grading panels are that if they are of the opinion that any sheep is in lamb, it must not be accepted for purchase for slaughter unless the condition of the animal is such that slaughter is necessary or desirable. I am satisfied

the graders are complying with this instruction.

Sir T. Moore: But is the right hon. Lady aware that out of a flock of 38 ewes recently driven to the Lincoln abattoir, 20 were found in lamb when slaughtered? Surely that does not look as if the graders were carrying out their job efficiently?

Dr. Summerskill: I thoroughly agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman and I will look into it immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTCH WHISKY

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Food what representations were made to him by the Scotch Whisky Association about increased allocations of barley to the distilling industry; and what was the nature of his reply.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend has reviewed with the Association the position concerning cereal allocations and releases of whisky during the coming 12 months. It has been agreed that the allocations for that period should be increased to 300,000 tons. There will be some increases in the releases of whisky during the period, but the whole of this must go for export.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Lady aware—I am sure she is—that that is about the only thing that was agreed and that the Association disagreed with every single thing the Minister said.

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been misinformed. The allocation which the Association had last year was 250,000 tons, and now we shall give them up to their capacity. We are giving them 300,000 tons, which means that the distilleries which had no barley before, can now come into operation.

Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Lady assure us that there were no contact people on this deputation from the Scotch Whisky Association? Is she aware that there is great discontent in Scotland about the huge profits made by the whisky combine, and will she agree to nationalise it?

Mr. Boothby: May I ask the right hon. Lady if she holds out absolutely no hope


of some slight issue of whisky for the people of this country, for, after all, they make the stuff?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, I can hold out a lot of hope. They will have two million proof gallons to drink.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Internal Air Services

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what places he is considering extending the internal air service in the near future.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The only new internal air service which will be introduced by the British European Airways Corporation this year is that to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) on 16th February—namely, Liverpool-Hawarden-CardiffHawarden-Valley.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is there no chance of any coming to Scotland in the near or distant future?

Mr. Lindgren: Scotland has more than its share now.

Airport Development Schemes

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why successive proposed schemes to develop Woolsington Airport, Newcastle-on-Tyne, for continental traffic, at a cost of £450,000, and a subsequent revised scheme costing £140,000, were both refused sanction and grant-in-aid when permission for other airport development schemes, including that at Ringway, Manchester, have been recently sanctioned; and what are the considerations which at the moment regulate the rejection or acceptance of airport development schemes by his Department.

Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend has been unable to support schemes for the development of Woolsington Aerodrome because of the limitations on Capital Investment and because a site at Boldon has been selected for ultimate development as the aerodrome to serve Tyneside. With

regard to the second part of the Question, airport development must be confined at present to schemes urgently required to meet the most essential need for international air services.

Mr. Wilkes: Whilst I appreciate the limitations put upon airport development schemes by reason of cuts in the capital investment programme, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that at present the North-East coast of England is entirely without any air communication with Scandinavia and that that part of the country feels rather neglected as a result?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir.

ORDER OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: On a point of Order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? This week the Questions on foreign affairs have come last and last but one in the list of Questions. Next week, I believe, they come fourth, both on Monday and on Wednesday. You will remember that before this new order of Questions it was the custom in this House for foreign affairs to have an early priority on one day in the week. Apart from keeping the Foreign Secretary waiting for a long time, as I see he has been today, would it be possible, after the Easter Recess, to re-arrange the order of Questions so that foreign affairs may have early priority on one day in the week?

Mr. Speaker: That is rather difficult, because on Monday foreign affairs Questions were reached and answered. On Monday there are five Departments which take their turn. It revolves, so to speak, around five cogs. On Wednesday six Departments take their turn. It happens that this week the wheels have so revolved that foreign affairs come rather late. Next week they will be getting better and in two weeks' time foreign affairs will be first on both Monday and Wednesday.
It is very difficult to arrange that foreign affairs should always be first on one of those two days but we do our best. It is by general agreement I understand, between all parties in the House that the present arrangement exists.

Mr. Stanley: I do not pretend to know how it could be done, but it would seem inconvenient that this week foreign


affairs should come last on both Monday and Wednesday, whereas in the week after next they will come almost first on both days. Would it be possible to have an arrangement whereby, if foreign affairs Questions came late on one of the two days, they would come rather earlier on the other day, instead of being late on both days in one week and early on both days in another week?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I am not really responsible. We do our best to try to suit the House and I have no doubt that between now and Easter we can see if some other arrangements can be come to.

Mr. Warbey: Would it be possible to consider giving priority on one day each week after the Prime Minister's Questions, as is done for some Departments?

Mr. Speaker: That depends on the number of supplementary questions. On some days we have not even reached the Prime Minister's questions. If it was always understood that we could reach Question 45 the hon. Member's suggestion might be worth considering.

Mr. Pickthorn: With respectful submission to your recollection, Mr. Speaker, about agreement between all parties, is it not the fact that at least once—I thought twice—in the course of this Parliament we have received something like a half-promise that after the experiment, consideration should be given to going back to having Foreign Office Questions always first on Wednesday, which is a matter of immense convenience to the Press of the world? I think it has been promised us more than once that that should be reconsidered before this Parliament is out.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I say that at all times both the Chair and I are perfectly willing to consider readjustments for the general convenience of the House. As it is, I understand that Foreign Office Questions are first on one day and stand a fair chance of being reached on the second day [An HON. MEMBER: "Not this week."] Not every week, but there is a fair chance of that.
We have to keep in mind that if we put up one Department to a premier position of precedence on the Order Paper we shall be involved in complaints from other hon. Members as a consequence of

other Departments being pushed down. Therefore, if I may say so with respect, the whole question wants thinking about before we become committed. As far as I am concerned, if complaints and representations are made I am perfectly willing to consider them and I am sure that you, too, Sir, would do so. I only warn the House to be a little careful in case we create another complaint as a result of solving this one.

Mr. K. Lindsay: May I thank you, Sir, and the Leader of the House for the possibility, at any rate, of re-arrangement, because at present it would be possible not to be able to ask a question on foreign affairs for a week and a half or two weeks. On Monday of this week we had a very rapid question period and did actually reach them, but we might easily have had no foreign affairs questions for the whole of this week.

Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the Leader of the House and the two Front Benches will consider this matter, and so will I. I can assure the hon. Gentleman however, that it is a more complicated matter than appears at first sight.

COURTS MARTIAL PROCEDURE

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): As the House knows, certain important interim recommendations of Mr. Justice Lewis's Committee have already been adopted, in particular the proposals for changes in the status and functions of the Judge Advocate General. The Judge Advocate General is now appointed on the advice of, and is responsible to, the Lord Chancellor though he continues to advise the Secretaries of State for War and Air. His former functions of preparing cases and conducting prosecutions at courts martial are now carried out by fully independent directorates of legal Services in the War Office and Air Ministry. Changes have also been made in the procedure for the announcement of findings at courts martial. In addition, certain of the final recommendations designed to reduce delays in trial by courts martial are in process of being implemented by administrative action.
Certain of the new features proposed by the Lewis Committee already form part of the naval courts martial system. In regard to others, the Admiralty are taking administrative action on similar lines to the War Office and Air Ministry. In particular, the Judge Advocate of the Fleet will in future be appointed by, and will be responsible to, the Lord Chancellor instead of the First Lord.
Among the major recommendations of the Committee still outstanding are the creation of a courts martial appeal court, the reconstitution of courts martial with civilian judge presidents, and unanimity of findings. The adoption of these three recommendations would entail a fundamental change in the basis of the administration of justice in the Fighting Services.
Owing to the wide differences between the circumstances of life and service in the Navy and in the other two Services, it was considered advisable to confine the remit of the Lewis Committee to the latter. It is, however, clear that the same principles should, so far as practicable, apply to the three Services. It has, therefore, been decided to set up a committee under Mr. Justice Pilcher, of similar composition to the Lewis Committee and of equal authority, to examine the naval courts martial system. It is hoped to receive the report of this committee without undue delay. A decision as to legislation on these major points will, therefore, be withheld until this report is available.

Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister of Defence say why these recommendations regarding the Army and the Air Force cannot be carried out until we get the report of another committee on the Navy? Surely, the Ministers of the Service Departments and the Government must either accept or reject the recommendations, which were unanimous, of this Committee, and it would be sensible to carry them out immediately without prejudice to what is to happen to the Navy.

Mr. Alexander: Regarding the Navy, as I have explained, there are very different circumstances to be inquired into. On the general question, which the Government has deliberately deferred for final decision until the report of the Pilcher Committee is complete, these very important major proposals affect the system of courts martial in all three

Services. It will be in greater fairness to the Services and to the men themselves if we give proper consideration to them after we have received this further Committee's report.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While agreeing that as far as practicable the same principles should apply to all three Services, in view of the very great delay which has already occurred since the report of the Lewis Committee was received by the Secretary of State for War, may I ask the Minister of Defence to reconsider his decision not to implement any of the major recommendations of the Lewis Committee still outstanding which were intended to apply solely to the Army and the Air Force until further considerable delay has occurred and until this further Committee, which has still to be set up, has reported?

Mr. Alexander: I could not go back on the announcement I have made in regard to the type of major question mentioned in my statement. It has been decided by the Government that a decision on these issues should be deferred until we have the report of the Pilcher Committee. But in the meantime, the Army and the Royal Air Force are proceeding to put into operation by administrative action many of the other recommendations of the Lewis Committee which had not previously been put into operation, and the Navy is also bringing a number of these things into effect by administrative action as well.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that this Committee worked very hard indeed for something like 18 months and considered an enormous mass of evidence, and at the end of that it seems a little hard that the Government should delay implementing the report of the Committee until someone has considered the matter of the Navy, which is quite irrelevant to the issues upon which the Committee presented its report?

Mr. Alexander: I cannot agree that it is irrelevant at all. As a matter of fact, there are a good many things and——

Mr. Blackburn: What has the Navy to do with the Army and the Air Force?

Mr. Alexander: I am saying, as I said in my statement, that it is desirable that as far as possible the same principle should apply to all three Services. These are very important issues on which the Government have decided to defer their decision until we have received the report of the Pilcher Committee.

Captain Crookshank: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what new circumstances have arisen, because the essential differences between naval, military and air procedure have always been known to everyone and were so when the Committee was originally set up? Why has there been this delay before that apparently obvious fact was made known to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Alexander: The naval case was not examined at all by the Lewis Committee—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] It is in consideration of these major issues arising out of the Lewis Committee report in relation to the Royal Navy, that has made it necessary to have this further Committee set up.

Mr. Berry: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the implementation of this report would considerably help recruiting by removing obstacles which stand in the way of recruiting at present?

Mr. Alexander: I should say that nearly all the irritant obstacles which have been standing in the way are now being put right by the implementation of other recommendations of the Lewis Committee.

Mr. Stanley: Would it not have been better to foresee at the time that these difficulties would arise and not to confine the recommendations of the Lewis Committee to two Services, which, we are told, cannot be implemented until the third Service is separately considered?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Swingler: Will my right hon. Friend consider this point? He has said that conditions in the Navy are rather different. Why is it that a reform generally agreed upon in two of the Services should be delayed because of a failure to have brought in the third Service in the initial inquiry? Would my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision in regard to one very important recom-

mendation about the unanimity of findings? I think that is generally regarded as a highly important recommendation of the Lewis Committee's report. Will my right hon. Friend consider carrying this recommendation immediately into effect in the Army?

Mr. Alexander: I think the first part of that supplementary question has already been answered. In regard to the second part, it is not possible for me to go back on the statement I have made. We have been into the matter very carefully and the decision I have announced is the decision of the Government.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Pilcher Committee will be asked to report with all possible expedition?

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.

Brigadier Head: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the recommendations of the Lewis Committee in regard to which it is suggested that naval procedure must be overlooked before they can be implemented?

Mr. Alexander: I have already referred to the major questions concerned in my statement to the House today; they are such questions as the creation of a courts martial Appeal Court, reconstitution of courts martial with civilian judge presidents and unanimity of findings.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend explain why the implementation of the proposals in regard to the Army and the Air Force, which the Government obviously must accept in principle are to be delayed, merely because the Navy have not had a committee to report on them?

Mr. Alexander: It is not merely that. The Government, when they considered questions of very great importance to the future discipline of the Forces, came to a decision that they would prefer to wait for a statement on the Navy before they made up their minds on three important issues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is the decision of the Government, after due consideration.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Stanley: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on Business for tomorrow?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The order in which it is proposed to take the Civil Supplementary Estimates tomorrow is as follows: We shall resume consideration of the Estimates for which the Colonial Office are responsible, then take the National Assistance Board Estimate, the House of Commons and other Supplementary Estimates for which the Treasury

are responsible, the Government Hospitality Fund and Estimates regarding the Ministry of Works, and then proceed, if there is time, with the remaining Supplementary Estimates in the order in which they stand on the Paper.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 117.

Division No. 67.]
AYES
[3.48 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng, Univ.)


Aden, A. C (Bosworth)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Logan, D G.


Alpass, J. H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Longden, F.


Anderson, A (Motherwell)
Ewart, R.
Lyne, A. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Farthing, W. J
McAdam, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Istington, E.)
McAllister, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Follick, M.
McEntee, V. La T


Austin, H. Lewis
Foot, M. M.
McGovern, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Forman, J. C.
Mack, J. D.


Ayles, W. H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bacon, Miss A.
Freeman, J. (Watford)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Balfour, A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McKinlay, A. S.


Barton, C.
Gallacher, W.
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gibson, C. W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Benson, G.
Gilzean, A.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Berry, H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mallalieu, J P. W. (Huddersfield)


Beswick, F
Gooch, E. G
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Binns, J.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Blackburn, A. R.
Grey, C. F.
Medland, H. M.


Blyton, W. R
Grierson, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bowen, R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bramall, E. A.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Moody, A. S.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Guest Dr. L. Haden
Morgan Dr. H. B.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Guy, W. H.
Morley, R.


Broughton, A. D. D.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brawn, George (Belper)
Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardman, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hardy, E. A.
Mort, D. L.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Harrison, J.
Moyle, A.


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Kingswinford)
Nally, W.


Burke, W. A
Herbison, Miss M.
Naylor, T. E.


Carmichael, James
Hewitson, Capt. M
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hicks, G.
Noel-Baker, Capt, F. E. (Brentford)


Champion, A. J
Hobson, C. R
O'Brien, T.


Chater, D.
Holman, P.
Oldfield, W. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Collick, P.
Horabin, T. L.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Collindridge, F.
Hoy, J.
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pearson, A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)
Peart, T. F.


Cove, W. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Piratin, P.


Crawley, A.
Janner, B.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Daggar, G.
John, W.
Popplewell, E.


Daines, P.
Johnston, Douglas
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davis, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Keenan, W.
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Ranger, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Rankin, J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirby, B. V
Rees-Williams, D R


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Reeves, J.


Deer, G.
Lang, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Delargy, H. J.
Lavers, S.
Richards, R


Dobbie, W
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Dye, S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Edelman, M.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Levy, B. W.
Sargood, R.




Scollan, T.
Sylvester, G. O.
Watkins, T. E.


Scott-Elliot, W
Symonds, A. L. 
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Segal, Dr. S. 
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Sharp, Granville
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
West, D. G. 


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wilkes, L.


Skeffington, A. M. 
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Skinnard, F. W. 
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Tiffany, S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Timmons, J
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Titterington, M. F.
Willis, E.


Snow, J. W
Tolley, L. 
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Solley, L. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Sorensen, R. W
Usborne, Henry
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Vernon, Maj. W F
Yates, V. F. 


Stamford, W.
Wadsworth, G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stross, Dr. B.
Walkden, E
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Stubbs, A. E. 
Walker, G. H.



Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Swingler, S
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P G
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E. 


Barlow, Sir J. 
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Prescott, Stanley


Beechman, N. A
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Birch, Nigel
Keeling, E. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boothby, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Langford-Holt, J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bower, N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecelesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Robinson, Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, A. R. W. 
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Butcher, H. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Scott, Lord W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Channon, H.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McFarlane, C. S
Snadden, W. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacLeod, J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Davidson, Viscountess
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, S. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Donner, P. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Taylor, Viee-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Teeling, William


Eccles, D. M.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fletcher, W (Bury)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Touche, G C.


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Mellor, Sir J.
Turton, R H.


Galbraith, T G D. (Hillhead)
Molson, A. H. E.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gammans, L. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Vane, W. M. F.


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Sallsbury)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.
York, C.


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Orr-Ewing, I L



Head, Brig A. H.
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Colonel Wheatley and




Lieut-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CONSULAR CONVENTIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.57 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The House may wish to know a little of the circumstances which have caused the Government to decide that this short, and I hope non-controversial, Bill dealing with consular conventions is necessary. I am told that over the last 100 years many countries have concluded consular conventions. They have done so because there was an absence of generally accepted international practice relating to many subjects connected with the functions and privileges of consulates. States have found it to their advantage to make agreements defining what the position of their respective consular offices should be, and extending reciprocal privileges.
However, the Governments of the United Kingdom have been a notable exception in that they have not followed this practice, and indeed until some few days ago, when we signed a consular convention with the Government of the United States, had concluded no conventions of this class. Primarily, as I understand it, their reluctance to conclude such a convention arose from the view that a great deal of domestic legislation was thought to be necessary in order to enable any Government of this country to fulfil their obligations arising from such a convention. Subsequent detailed and thorough examination of this subject, with the assistance of the Law Officers for England and for Scotland, resulted in the conclusion that the need for legislation changing the law of this country was much less than had previously been presumed.
The greater part of the convention which we have signed can be carried out without legislation, either because the matter falls within the sphere of the Executive or because the provisions of the convention are really declaratory of the general principles of international law, which I am told are recognised by the courts here as part of our common law Subsequent to this examination,

and in consequence of it, the Government felt free to enter into consular conventions without thereby being faced with the necessity for legislation before the convention was ratified. Negotiations with the United States were started during the war but were delayed for a time at the end of hostilities because plainly both Governments were overworked with subjects arising from the war. Last year, however, negotiations were resumed, and we have now a convention with which the House is acquainted.
It is necessarily somewhat a technical document. It is concerned throughout with the position of consular officers in the country to which they are appointed including their legal immunities and their financial privileges. The Government consider that, except in relation to three points to which I shall refer in a moment, they will be able to carry out all their obligations arising from the convention, either because they are in accordance with the law of this country, including international law which would he recognised by the English courts, or by the use of executive power.
The three points upon which it was thought necessary to ask Parliament to legislate are the qualified immunity of consular premises from search, the ability of a consular officer to administer the estate of a deceased person in which his nationals—the nationals of the consular officer—are beneficiaries, but not represented, and thirdly, to endow the Ministry of Transport with power to hand over to the appropriate consular officer the estate of a deceased seaman and national of the consular officer's country if it does not exceed £100. Let me try to deal quite briefly, but I hope not inadequately——

Mr. R. A. Butler: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, would he tell us with how many countries this convention is agreed?

Mr. McNeil: Only one convention has been concluded, with the Government of the United States.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would the Minister say with what other countries there have been negotiations for any similar conventions?

Mr. McNeil: There are limited agreements existing with eight other countries


which we propose to revoke, as I have disclosed. There is no comparable convention in negotiation, although I make it plain that in the view of the Government it will be appropriate and convenient to extend such conventions, or the offer of such conventions, to many countries. The Bill arises at this time because of the convention which we have signed with the Government of the United States.
The first necessity arises from article 8, paragraph (4) of the convention. It is one with which I expect that the House will be closely concerned and upon which I hope I can meet the proper fears of the House. It provides by Clause 4 of the Bill before us that, subject to certain conditions, a consular office may not be entered by the police or other authorities of the receiving State, that is the State in which the office is situated. We have asked for this legislation on this point because it is doubted if there is sufficient authority in international law or in practice to justify us in relying on this particular immunity being part of the existing international law and as such recognised by the courts of Britain as being part of the United Kingdom law, although it is in fact granted in many other countries. The House, however, will note that this immunity is only given subject to certain limiting conditions which quite clearly distinguish it from and narrow it from the wide immunity endowed upon diplomatic missions.
Upon these limitations let me make these points. Firstly, the consular office must be devoted exclusively to consular business. Further, entry may take place where the consular officer consents to such entry. Further, where such consent is withheld or cannot be obtained, entry may take place in the execution of a writ or any other legal process, provided that the consent of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is obtained. Obviously—and this has some relevance from a recent incident—consent must be presumed in the event of a fire or of some comparable emergency, or if the authorities on the territory of the receiving State have probable cause to believe that crime or violence has been, or is being, or is about to be committed in the consular office.
Finally, even this partial immunity will not apply, in relation to this country at any rate, if the consular officer should be a citizen of the United Kingdom or its Colonies—and I am told that that quite frequently happens—or unless indeed he is a national of the sending State. He must have the nationality of the State for whose interest the consular office is conducted.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds may I ask this, which I think is rather important: Does he mean that if the consular office is in charge of any consul of British nationality, the immunity suggested in this Bill is rendered invalid?

Mr. McNeil: If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, if an officer, an honorary officer of British nationality, conducted consular premises on behalf of a foreign State, this part of the immunity would not be endowed upon him—such immunities would not be accorded to him or to those premises which he conducts.
I know that normally the House is jealous about withdrawing people or property from the ordinary jurisdiction of the Government or its authorities. The Government, in the drafting of this Bill, have been at pains to see that the normal and, I repeat, the proper fears of the House upon this subject are respected. I hope that, on reflection, the House will agree that there is nothing inherently unreasonable in providing that a consular office shall not be entered without the consent either of the consular officer or, on the other hand, the consent of the responsible Minister of the receiving Government, except under conditions of emergency to which I have alluded. I am warned that it will be inaccurate to say that there is a generally accepted rule of international law upon this point. But I am sure that the House will appreciate that there is sufficient authority resident in the practice of civilised States to justify this limited immunity. I would certainly say it is a limited immunity which we are most anxious to maintain for our consulates abroad.
I am also told that as a matter of practice our police authorities normally would not, except in special cases included in the Convention and in the Bill, enter into foreign consulate premises without first attempting to secure the consent of the appropriate consular officer. There is


one other safeguard which the House will have noticed. This partial immunity is not automatically endowed upon consular premises in this country. To the safeguards to which I have already referred one overriding provision is attached. Limited immunity will apply only to those Governments with which His Majesty's Government has concluded a consular convention precisely providing for this point, and then only if an Order in Council, which must first be laid before Parliament in accordance with Clause 6 of this Bill, has been made.
In translating the language of the Convention into the Bill there has been a slight change. The words of the Convention are:
With the consent of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
They become:
With the consent of a Secretary of State.
That is, the Secretary of State for the Home Department in England and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland. In practice, of course, both those Ministers, before giving their consent to entry, would consult with the Foreign Secretary so that our obligations under the Convention, or under a comparable convention, would be fully met. This is the major point of the Bill and I hope that I am not unreasonably confident in believing that the House will welcome it.
The second point of substance arises from article 18 of the Convention. Here, under certain conditions which are recited in the article, the courts are to give the administration of the estate of a deceased person to the appropriate consular officer who can give a valid discharge for any property forming part of that estate. Broadly, the aim of article 18 is to enable a consular officer to act on behalf of an absent national who has an interest in a property left in the territory of the receiving State. We and the Government of the United States are of the opinion that this would be a useful provision enabling a consular officer to look more effectively after the interests of his nationals than is possible under the present law. The consul will only have access to this, however, in the last resort if the interested foreign nationals have not appointed anyone to represent them.
There is also a subsequent small provision in Clause 1 (4) which will exempt

a consular officer who receives a grant of administration from a court from the necessity of giving sureties. I am told that this is a matter of prestige and a gesture to the Government which appoints him, but it is a gesture with no risks attendant at all. The House will note that in order to give effect to article 18, two Clauses are required, one for England and one for Scotland. This is due to the fact that English and Scottish property law differs in procedure in this respect.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The English law is better.

Mr. McNeil: I should not care to be drawn into a discussion upon this point, but I am bound to say that the caution of the Scottish courts in the disposal of properties is beyond exception. In the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, I would not want to suggest that the English courts are ever incautious, but we in Scotland are very careful upon this subject. Here again, an Order in Council will be required to bring the Clauses into operation. It occurred to me when I was trying to master this subject that the courts of Northern Ireland are rather different in some respects. However, I do not see any necessity to be drawn into a discussion on that.
The Bill contains a Clause providing that no further Orders in Council shall be made under Section 4 of the Domicile Act, 1861, and that existing Orders may be revoked. Section 4 of that Act provides that on the conclusion of a convention with a foreign State, the King on the basis of reciprocity may direct by Order in Council that when subjects of such foreign States die in His Majesty's dominions and there is no person to administer their estates, a consular officer of the foreign State may act. I am told that this Section has been a dead letter to a large extent, although eight Orders were made under it in 1939. In view of the provisions of article 18 of the convention and the fact that we intend to include similar provisions in future consular conventions which we may conclude, the Government think that it would be tidier not to make further use of Section 4. In any case, the new Clauses 1 and 2, if the House agrees to them, provide a better way of achieving the same object.
The final point involves two minor amendments of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which arise out of the provisions of article 25, paragraph (4), and article 27, paragraph (2). Clause 5 (1) of the Bill deals with the latter. It will enable the Minister of Transport to pay or deliver money or property of a deceased seaman not exceeding £100 to a consular officer for transmission to the appropriate person or persons who are resident in the consular officer's State. Clause 5 (2) which is concerned with Article 25 of the Convention extends the power of a consular officer in regard to a vessel wrecked off the coast of the United Kingdom, which power already exists in relation to articles belonging to or forming part of such a wrecked vessel or her cargo. The Government have not thought it necessary or convenient to confine these amendments only to consular officers of countries in favour of it, and an Order in Council may be made under the Bill. In other words, this, as distinct from the immunities section, is a general provision.
I hope that the House will agree that this is indeed a brief and desirable Bill which will tidy up our practice in relation to consular officers and add to the efficiency of our own officers abroad as well as to the efficiency of the officers of foreign Governments with whom we conclude conventions. Naturally we shall be glad to try to give further information on any detail arising from a consideration of the nine Clauses of this Bill.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It is very good to see the Foreign Office becoming involved in legislation in this House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is now looking forward to a long and intricate piece of legislation which will engage his attention for some considerable time. If I find myself unable to speak for a very long time on this Bill, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not imagine that I have not beside me others to whom I would wish to give way in order not to be selfish in this matter and so that they may put their point of view from the legal angle. This is a most important Bill from the legal point of view. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were three

particular objects—immunity from search, the dealing with estates of deceased persons, and the question of merchant seamen.
I think he has with great clarity put before us the main purposes of the Bill. So far as I can understand it, and according to its Title, this Bill applies only to those States with whom a convention has been made in respect of Clause 5. We are in some doubt about Clause 4, and I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General whether it is of general application or whether it is entirely governed by Clause 6 (1), and, thereby, restricted only to States with whom we may make a convention. If that is the case, it would be the fact that this Bill applies only to our relations with the United States of America and U.S. consular representatives. I should like to ask whether, if that is correct, there are other countries, including the eight with whom we are having negotiations, and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us which States they are and can give us an indication of the likely effect of a Bill of this character, which would appear to be a somewhat cumbrous piece of machinery with which to deal solely with U.S. consular representatives in this country.
Can he also give us an indication how soon it is likely to be applied to other countries, and may we have a clearer idea about the effect of the Bill? I hope that my reading of Clause 6 will be confirmed by the Solicitor-General, and, naturally, before coming to the House today, I took the trouble to read through my "Diplomatic Practice" and other volumes with which I was fully conversant when occupying the position now held by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am somewhat disappointed because so much in these volumes relates to diplomatic and not to consular practice.
We are naturally interested particularly in the provisions of Clause 4. In so far as they apply to the State with which the first convention has been signed, we would regard the Clause as being of very reasonable content; that is to say, in the first place, the consul's consent is attempted to be obtained, but, if not obtained, entry can be made with the approval of the Secretary of State. Then, there are the other provisions concerning fire services and in regard to a constable who believes that a crime of violence has


been committed, and a person entitled to enter by contract or private right. These seem to us to be reasonable provisions. I am not quite clear, however, what will happen in the case of a country, for example, with whom we were on unfriendly terms but which still had consular representatives in this country. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman regards these provisions as just as satisfactory in that case as they are in the case of the country with whom we make a convention, and with other countries with whom conventions are to be made.
I should further like an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on the extent to which, in his view, these new provisions about immunity from search compare with the existing consular and diplomatic practice, because it is not quite clear to our minds whether, in the event of an emergency, the need to enter consular offices of a certain State with whom a convention had been made—because that would be the condition under which the Bill operated—the Government would not be unduly held up in performing a national duty should such circumstances unfortunately arise. I have used language which even the right hon. Gentleman will agree is sufficiently diplomatic, and I should be glad of an answer to that point.
Concerning the estates of deceased persons, we regard this Bill as a piece of consolidation which simply takes the place of Section 4 of the Domicile Act, 1861, but we are not quite clear why it was necessary to re-enact that provision of that Act. The right hon. Gentleman wisely reminded us of the fact, which we had been able to perceive, that this was a consolidation of the Domicile Act, but he did not make it clear to what extent the new provision replaces the old or to what extent it is an improvement or otherwise upon the old Statute. Perhaps this is a matter to which the Solicitor-General could apply his learned acumen.
I have nothing to add on the subject of deceased seamen except to ask whether the introduction of the Minister of Transport into this matter foreshadows any particular extension of the Minister's activities towards merchant shipping, and whether we would be unwise to read into the Bill any sinister intention in this regard. We should like to be able to get some further inkling as to the policy of

hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to elicit a clearer statement from the Minister on that subject. Apart from that, I should be interested to hear what is the position at the present time of His Majesty's consuls abroad.
We are interested to know that the working of the closer practice of consular law in the international field is operating in a satisfactory manner, and I feel satisfied that, a convention having been concluded with the United States, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us the complete picture and show us why it was necessary to establish these new consular conventions and replace the old conventions under international law which have governed the general treatment of consular representatives. If he has any information to give us showing what it was that caused the Government to go in for these conventions rather than rely upon international law, we should be very glad to be told, and to know the reason why they came to the House and occupied the time of Parliament with this Bill. Those are the only considerations which occur to my mind in discussing this Measure, and I should be glad if the learned Solicitor-General would deal with some of the points which I have put to him.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in introducing this Bill has dealt in a very lucid way with matters of a highly technical nature. My examination of the Bill leads me to mention two or three points which I think are worthy of the consideration of the House.
I think we should all be happy about the provisions of this Bill if we felt that they were only going to apply to countries like the United States, but we are in the difficulty today of being asked by the Government to pass a Bill which will become of general application as and when Orders in Council are made. I hope the Minister who replies will be able to tell us the names of the eight countries with whom negotiations are at present in progress.

Mr. McNeil: Negotiations are not in train with eight countries. We had a limited agreement under the old Domicile Act with eight different countries, hut, as a matter of fact, there are only


two other countries with whom we are even remotely near having negotiations upon this subject.

Mr. Fletcher: That being so, we are nevertheless being asked by the Government to pass a Bill which may at a subsequent date be extended to other States. It is therefore necessary for us to examine the provisions of the Bill on the hypothesis that they may hereafter be applied to other States besides the United States of America. Taking the provisions of the Bill as it stands, I suggest it would be highly undesirable for the Government to enter into a consular convention of the kind proposed with, for example, the States behind the iron curtain. I cannot imagine that a consular convention with a State behind the iron curtain at this time would confer any advantages on British subjects. I can equally envisage that if there were a convention of this kind with such a State, it might conceivably create very serious disadvantages for many people in this country, especially under Clauses 1 and 2. The same observations would apply if His Majesty's Government were proposing to enter into a convention of this kind with, say, Spain, or any country under a totalitarian regime. In such an event, I do not think there would be any advantage conferred on British subjects, and I believe there would be a serious risk of great injustice being done to residents in this country.
The House should understand precisely what it is that Clauses 1 and 2 intend to do in relation to the estates of deceased foreigners. As matters stand today, if a person dies abroad leaving property in this country, either the executor in the deceased's own country or his legal personal representative can grant a power of attorney to somebody in this country who can then go to the Probate Court—formerly the Ecclesiastical Court—and obtain the imprimateur of the Court entitling him to administer the property in England of such deceased person. It will be appreciated that the duties of the administrator are primarily ministerial. They have to see that the actual beneficiaries or legatees who may well be British subjects or persons resident or domiciled here are duly paid.
This Bill seeks to extend the power of the Probate Court to grant such letters of representation to a consular officer.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Only where there is a will.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman says only where there is a will, but I do not agree with him, and perhaps that is a point which the Solicitor-General would confirm. As I understand the Bill, under Clause I in England and Clause 2 in Scotland, the Probate Court will hereafter be able, in certain events, to grant letters of administration to a consular officer in respect of the estate of a deceased foreigner.
I am afraid this is rather a technical subject, and I hesitate to detain the House with it, but it is important to obtain clarification on two points. The first is this. Is the grant of letters of representation to the consular officer to be made to him as a consular officer or as a private individual? In other words, is it proposed, as is the present practice of the Court of Probate, to charge a particular named individual with the responsibility of seeing that the provisions of the will are executed, or, if there is no will, that the provisions of the foreign law on intestacy are duly administered? Also is that particular individual to be held responsible after he ceases to hold his consular office; or is it proposed that if the consular officer nominated by the Probate Court ceases to occupy his consular office and is translated elsewhere, or removed for some other reason that his personal responsibilities should terminate. In that event what is to happen to the administration of that particular estate, and who is to be responsible for seeing that the provisions of the estate are duly carried out?
That is a matter not entirely without importance for this reason. Under the Bill as drawn it is proposed in Clause 1 (3) that where a consular officer is charged by the Court with the duty of administering the estate of a deceased person he should be—unlike all other administrators—relieved from the obligation of entering into a bond to see that he administers the estate correctly and does not defalcate with the property of the deceased person. The present procedure requires anybody who is appointed by the Court to administer the property of a deceased person to give a bond to the value of twice the value of the estate, and to find two sureties so that, if the administrator for some reason


or other, either because he misunderstands his duty or for some more culpable reason, does not carry out the provisions properly, there is security for the beneficiaries. It is very common, as Clause 1 (3) recites, to find that instead of having two individuals a trust corporation acts as surety.
Why should a foreign consular officer be released from that obligation? In this connection it is not unimportant to remind the House of the very unfortunate experience of the Poles a few years ago. A great many Polish nationals, supporters of General Anders, lost their lives, and some of them left property in this country. Their estates were administered presumably by reason of the Domicile Act, by a gentleman known as Mr. Poznanski who at that time was the Polish Consul appointed by the former Polish Government. As the Minister will remember there was subsequently a change of Government in Poland after a General Election. We recognised that new Government which thereupon proceeded to repudiate Mr. Poznanski, said that he no longer had any consular authority, and appointed a new consul. But there was no machinery to enable the new consul to carry on the administration of the estates Mr. Poznanski was dealing with.
I ask the Minister and those who in future will be charged with the administration of this Bill to bear in mind the possibility that after a consular officer has been appointed, he may either lose his office for some reason or other, or there may be a change in the Government which appoints him as a result of which the new Government no longer recognises any responsibility for the former consul. Had a Bill of this kind been in operation a few years ago, we should have found a former consular officer charged with the administration of a number of estates—in this case this particular Polish consul was in fact in the course of administering several hundreds of estates of deceased Poles—fully clothed with the authority of our courts to administer such estates, but repudiated by the Polish Government of the day. In such circumstances there would have been no security by bond and sureties for the due administering of his duties as in the case of all other estates.
It seems to me, therefore, that two conclusions could properly be drawn. First of all, there should be the greatest discretion in extending this consular convention, or any similar consular convention, to other states. If a consular convention is once made with, for example, the state of Ruritania, with whom we afterwards quarrelled or with whom we ceased to have diplomatic relations, it would then be necessary both to revoke the Order in Council sanctioning that consular convention and also to see that appropriate steps were taken to secure the due administration of any estates with which the consul of that country had been dealing under the provisions of this Bill.
I would also urge that Clause 1 (3), which contemplates exempting consular officers from giving a bond, should be reconsidered before the Bill reaches its final stage. If I might mention one other point in detail it is this: in Clause 1 (1) no provision is made with regard to the time at which a consular officer may make his application for a grant of representation. It is provided that the consular officer shall be able to apply
if no application for a grant of such representation is made by a person duly authorised by power of attorney to, act for him in that behalf.
It would make the provisions of the Bill much clearer if it were provided that an interval were given of whatever would be reasonable—perhaps 12 months, or in certain circumstances even more—before the person who would normally have the right to apply for the grant—that is to say, the person of the deceased's choice—were superseded by a consular officer in whom he might or might not have confidence.
I have dealt so far only with Clauses 1 and 2. I do not propose to say anything about Clause 4, but if the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General would look at Clause 6, I would ask him to consider this point. Is it a correct interpretation of the intention of this Bill that the provisions of the Bill can only be brought into operation by an Order in Council which deals collectively with Clauses, 1 2 and 4, or is Clause 6 sufficiently wide to cover the case where it might be desirable to enter into a consular convention which dealt merely with Clauses 1 and 2, but not necessarily with the other provisions of the Bill?
Finally, it seems to me that if there is to be any considerable extension of consular conventions with other countries, we shall find ourselves in a position where at the same time we have two different standards of consular immunity—one set of consuls enjoying the immunity conferred by Clause 4 and another set of consuls from a different set of States not having that immunity. I am not sure that that will be a desirable situation in our general diplomatic arrangements and it is a matter which the Minister may wish to consider.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) has raised a number of points which in my opinion require a full answer from the right hon. and learned Solicitor-General. I propose to raise one or two further points which also, I think, merit most careful consideration.
While agreeing with the general objectives of this Measure, I regret that I cannot congratulate the Foreign Office upon its draftmanship. On this side of the House we felt in the first place, some doubt as to whether Clause 4 is of general application or limited to application to states with whom there are conventions. The Solicitor-General shakes his head. I do not know whether he means he is in doubt or whether he is expressing the view that the Clause is clear, but might I suggest to him that it is not very clear? Clause 1 (1), says that Clause applies only to a person who
is a national of a State to which this section applies.
That, straight away, indicates that this Clause is of limited application and we have to refer to Clause 6, to see that Clause 1 has to be brought into operation by an Order in Council.
When one looks at Clause 4 one finds nothing to indicate that it is not of entirely general application. There is no word in Clause 4 to carry one on to Clause 6. Bearing in mind the provisions of Section 8 of the Interpretation Act, 1889, which are:
That every section of an Act shall have effect as a substantive enactment without introductory words,
I must say that in the matter of drafting Clause 4, it is most important to make it

clear beyond doubt that Clause 4, again, has to be brought into operation by an Order in Council. We take the view that it is right that a degree of immunity should be given to the consular offices of States with whom conventions are entered into, but I am not quite certain whether the conditions set out in Clause 4 are quite right. The hon. Member for East Islington made some references to the iron curtain. I do not want to enter into any controversial subjects but I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether this is not the effect of Clause 4.
Suppose that there are some consular offices of a State with whom one has entered into a convention—consular offices to which Clause 4 applies. The right hon. Gentleman in moving the Second Reading said that, of course, Clause 4 would not apply unless the consular offices were exclusively used for consular purposes. But, of course, one might not know, if one is unable to get into them, exactly what purposes they are being used for. Let me assume for the purposes of my illustration that certain consular offices are being wrongly used and that evidence has become available rendering it eminently desirable, in the interests of the state, that those premises should be searched.
Putting forward my argument on the basis of those assumptions, which may never be justified—I hope they will not—does it not follow from Clause 4 that in those circumstances there could be no search of those premises until, first, one had a search warrant and, secondly, the consular officer had been asked to consent to the search, and that he had either withdrawn it or his consent could not be obtained, and that it is only after the refusal of the consular officer that a Secretary of State can exercise his overriding jurisdiction? May it not be the case that if the consent of the consular officer is a condition precedent to the exercise of the overriding powers of the Secretary of State the whole object of the search, which may be in the national interest, may be defeated?
I am merely putting this to the right hon. Gentleman because at first sight it would seem to me that there is something to be said for giving the Secretary of State the power of authorising the search without making it a statutory condition precedent that he should pro-


ceed to obtain the consent of the consul. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the normal case the Secretary of State would naturally, if he wanted a search of the premises, seek to obtain the consent of the consul. I quite agree that in the normal case that would happen. However, is it not really desirable to legislate in this connection rather for the abnormal case, leaving the Secretary of State to follow the normal practice in the normal way, and not to make it a statutory condition precedent that he should obtain the consent or seek to obtain the consent of the consul?
I now want to make a few observations, in addition to those made by my right hon. Friend, in relation to Clause 1. I refrain for obvious reasons from making any observations in relation to Clause 2 which applies solely to Scotland. I am sure that that course will meet with approval. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Reading, did make a casual reference to Section 4 of the Domicile Act, 1861. That Section, as I see it, really gives all the powers which are contained in the first two Clauses of this Bill. It gives them in somewhat greater clarity. In the first place, it starts by saying:
Whenever a convention shall be made between Her Majesty and any Foreign State, whereby Her Majesty's Consuls or Vice-Consuls in such Foreign State shall receive the same or the like Powers and Authorities as are hereinafter expressed …
That is purported to be contained in Clause 6 of the Bill as:
… being a State with which a consular convention providing for matters for which provision is made by those sections has been concluded by His Majesty.
As a matter of drafting I think there is a good deal to be said for the Act of Parliament of 1861. That Act was not limited to cases where a person had been named as an executor in a will, and as I read it, Clause 1 (1) of the Bill is clearly limited to cases where the national of the State to whom the convention applies is named as an executor in the will, and no provision is made for the case where a foreigner, a national of that State with whom the convention has been made, dies intestate, leaving property in this country. Quite clearly that case—the death of someone dying intestate leaving property in this country—could be dealt with under the Domicile Act, 1861.

I admit that I am a little puzzled to know why this particular Measure makes no provision for that event—the intestacy of such a national leaving property in this country.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Clause 1 (1) states—I am leaving out the unnecessary words—
Where any person … is named as executor in the will of a deceased person disposing of property in England, or is otherwise a person to whom a grant of representation to the estate in England of a deceased person may be made …
That would cover the case of intestacy.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I may be wrong about that. If the right hon. Gentleman assures me I am wrong about it I shall accept it.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I can give that assurance. The first line deals with the case of wills. Line 4 deals with the case of intestacy.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That makes that point quite clear. But then there is this further point, which seems to me to arise from subsection (1), which is, that the power in that subsection is exercised on the court's being satisfied, on the application of the consular officer, that the national is not resident in England. That is the first condition that has to be satisfied. The second one is, if no application for a grant is made by a person duly authorised by power of attorney. These two conditions would have to be satisfied. There is no provision here for ensuring that where a foreign national is named as executor the consent of that foreign national to the application being made by the consul should first be obtained. There is no provision for ensuring that the national named as executor should have any notice or knowledge of the steps that may be taken by the consul of the State with whom the convention has been signed.
Again, I notice that the word "resident" is used. It is used elsewhere in this Bill. It seems to me that without some definition of what is meant by a national being "resident" in this country we may have considerable difficulties emerging in the future. We all know the difficulties that now exist in regard to the interpretation of domicile. I should be interested to hear what the


right hon. Gentleman has to say as to the meaning of the expression "a national who is not resident in this country," which appears so frequently in this Bill. Is the national to be treated as resident in this country, if, for instance, he is over here for the very purpose of seeking to fulfil his duties as executor under a particular will and in seeking to administer the estate? The same point arises in Subsection (2).
I would not wish to repeat the points which the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) put. They are points which, in my opinion, are worthy of careful consideration, and I hope that we shall have from the Solicitor-General a statement, at least, that the defects to which the hon. Gentleman and I have drawn attention will be corrected at a later stage in the passage of the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I do not wish to prolong the discussion by going into the details of the Bill, but I want to ask the Solicitor-General two questions. If I understood the Minister of State aright, the provisions of this Bill in actual fact will apply only to the United States, because the United States is the only country with which we have entered into the consular convention. If that be correct, I personally have no objection to the contents of the Bill. If, however, it is intended to bring other countries within the scope of the consular conventions, then I think the House should know what are the other countries in question with whom it is proposed to enter into negotiations, and at what date. I say that with particular reference to Clause 4 which concerns "Restriction of powers of entry in relation to consular offices." An hon. Member opposite and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) have both quoted obvious examples where it would be extremely unwise to apply Clause 4 to certain countries. If it is to have any wider application than that concerning the United States, we ought to be very careful indeed.
The second question I want to ask is this: The immunity of search is invalid if the consul of the country in question happens to be a British subject. As the Solicitor-General knows, it is sometimes the case that a British subject is

appointed consul to a foreign country perhaps in an honorary capacity. It also happens from time to time that on his staff he has a vice-consul or more often a clerk who is not a British subject but who is a national of the country whose interests the British subject represents in an honorary capacity. Clause 4 says, in respect of the powers of entry and search, that consular offices shall not be entered
except with the consent of the consular officer in charge of that office.
Suppose that some crisis or emergency were to arise where entry was desired to that particular consulate, at a time when the British subject functioning in a consular capacity was away on leave or ill, and the vice-consul or the clerk was physically in charge of the consulate for that period. Would he be able to render the right of entry invalid by raising objections under Clause 4, and making it necessary for the Foreign Secretary to give his consent? We ought to look a little more carefully at the provisions of Clause 4.
I am not trying to detain the House on any legal quibble, but I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General could clear up those two points: first, what other countries do we intend to bring into the consular convention; and secondly, does Clause 4 apply to a vice-consul who is not a British subject but who is acting consul in the absence of the British subject who normally fills that position?

5.3 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is very unusual to be able to say that the Government in one of their Bills have considered Scottish law. We are usually faced with Bills which contain a reference Clause whereby small things are made clear, such as "For 'arbitrator' read 'arbiter'," and that type of thing. Here we have a Clause which definitely sets out to make provision for persons living under Scots law. The Government are to be congratulated on having seen the force of the argument that such Clauses are absolutely essential in a joint Bill for both countries.
However, I think it would have been of assistance if either of the Law Officers for Scotland had been present to tell us something about Clause 2. While I realise that the Minister of State is "weel kennt" in legal circles in Scotland, although he is


not a lawyer, I am wondering whether he is satisfied that this Clause covers Scots people under Scots law without any loopholes. Would it be possible on the Committee stage for a Scottish Law Officer to be present, so that we can go into details of that kind without in any way offering criticism?

5.5 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): In the course of this Debate a number of points of interest have been raised, and I will endeavour to answer them, trying so far as I can recollect them, not to leave out any. Perhaps I may address myself first to the questions which were asked by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden. (Mr. R. A. Butler). He asked whether Clause 4 is limited to countries in respect of which conventions have been or will be made, and the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. ManninghamBuller) repeated and reinforced that question, making a commentary upon the drafting which he said was not altogether satisfactory. I think the drafting clearly limits Clause 4 to countries in respect of which conventions have been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman may not have noticed in line 2 of this Clause the words
a State to which this section applies.
However, there is no reason why the Clause should not be looked at again to see that we have effectively achieved that purpose. I think we have achieved that purpose with the drafting as it stands. That is a matter which has been carefully considered, but we shall bear in mind the criticism which has been made. It is certainly the intention that Clause 4 should be applied only in the case of States in respect of which a convention has been or will be made. The intention is plain, and we think we have carried it out in the present drafting, but we will reconsider the matter in case we have not.
On Clause 4 a point of principle was raised as to what difference that Clause really makes to the existing position so far as it is embodied in the actual practice which is followed in relation to consular offices. Broadly speaking, the provisions of Clause 4 reproduce very closely what is the de facto practice at the moment. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his opening speech, the exact

legal position is far from clear, but there is a practice followed, and that practice is really very close to that which is now turned into terms of law—assuming that the House passes this Bill by Clause 4. In that respect, therefore, no real difference is made, but there are difficulties about the existing practice. 
If a warrant has been issued it must be enforced that is to say, it must be executed—and practical difficulties arise where it is contemplated applying for a warrant in the light of the fact that if it is issued it must be executed and it must be used. We introduce the question of the safeguard of the consent, first of the consular officer, and, in default, the Secretary of State. In that respect the existing practice is improved upon, because a certain elasticity about the practice is introduced which smooths over possible situations of difficulty which may arise under the existing practice.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry asked whether in Clause 4 we had not possibly gone a little too far. He was concerned with the case in which it might be thought that consular offices were being improperly used, and he wondered whether we had not tied our hands too tightly in the terms of Clause 4. I think there are two answers to that point; one is an answer of fact, and the other depends on the precise wording of Clause 4. The fact is that it is proposed to use Clause 4 only in the case of countries with whom our relations are cordial—countries such as the United States, in the case of which we have negotiated an agreement on these matters, and with whom we feel that we can enter into similar agreements.
If the question is asked what countries they are likely to be at the moment, although formal negotiations have not been entered into, we are moving towards a position in which we shall be or may be discussing the matter with France and Egypt. Those are two other countries; but the whole point and substance of this matter is that we shall enter into these reciprocal arrangements only with countries in respect of which it can be said that really cordial relationships exist and will continue to subsist. Therefore, practical difficulties are not likely to arise in the application of this treaty provision. That is the general background against which——

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not assuming that the cordial relations which will exist at the time the convention is entered into will necessarily endure. For instance, cordial relations that existed in 1945 with Russia have somewhat deteriorated. In 1945 if this Bill had been an Act one might have made a convention, but the position is now that one might not. Surely the argument that he has put assumes that the relations remain entirely satisfactory with every State with whom the convention is made.

Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman is an extreme pessimist. I hope that his pessimism is not justified. The treaty is capable of determination supposing the relationship did alter so drastically for the worse. The only country we have entered into a treaty of this connection with is the United States. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that our relationship with the United States should so deteriorate that we should repent of having entered into a treaty on these terms. I am simply saying that the countries with which we have entered into these treaties will be countries with which we feel we are really in terms of cordial relationship. There is another answer to be found in the wording of Clause 4 itself.
The right of immunity is not by any means a general right of immunity; my right hon. Friend in his opening speech intimated the various conditions subject to which it is granted. The condition which he did not mention and which I think is immediately relevant to the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman asked is contained in subsection (3). The building in respect of which an immunity is granted must be one which is exclusively occupied and which must be —and these are the important words—
exclusively occupied for the purposes of the official business of a consular officer.
It has to be exclusively occupied for his actual official business, and I think that, subject to that limitation, it cannot be said that the immunity is one which is too wide and which is incautious, and not sufficiently limited in the terms of the Subsection. It is taking a peculiarly unreal view of the situation to think that this is anything which we are likely to repent of in the case of a country with

which we are likely to enter into treaty. I think that answers the question put on Clause 4 of the Bill. There is the question of drafting which we have said we shall consider and the question of general policy which I hope I have adequately answered.
I want to answer the questions so far as I am able on the other Clauses which form the subject of observations made by hon. Members who addressed the House. With regard to the Domicile Act, 1861, there are differences between the framework of that Act and the framework of Clause 1. Generally speaking, without going into the details of it which the House can examine in Committee, if it approves the Second Reading of this Bill, the position is this: The Domicile Act, 1861, is founded upon the nationality not of the beneficiary but of the deceased. For a variety of reasons that gives rise to difficulties and inconveniences. That itself, we thought, was one reason which justified us in saying that the Domicile Act, 1861, should not be retained, and that it would be better and tidier in reviewing our legislation on this particular topic to put an end to Section 4 of that Act and to re-enact in the terms of Clause 1 precisely what it is that we desire to encompass in conjunction with a treaty relating to consular officers. That is the reason why we have done it.
Certain technical points were asked in particular by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) on Clause I as to its effect. He was perturbed with regard to Clause 1 (4). In point of fact, the consular officer is not relieved from the obligation of furnishing a bond. What he is relieved of is the obligation of furnishing security, and we think this is justified by the fact that there is after all a country behind the consular officer and that he should not be required to furnish security although he still has to furnish a bond, which is provided for under existing legislation in the case of grants under letters of administration.

Mr. E. Fletcher: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the consular officer will have his country behind him. His country will be responsible for him.

The Solicitor-General: I mean that he is normally the consular officer who represents a great country—in the case of the United States an enormous country—and


we think that it is not reasonable to expect the consular officer for a country like that to furnish these securities.
A question was asked whether letters of administration would be granted to the individual consular officer in his personal capacity or in his capacity as an officer; that is to say, whether the grant will be to his office. The intention is that the grant should be to the holder of the office, not to the individual but to the person who from time to time holds the office. It may be said that we have not clearly specified that in the terms of the Clause in the Bill, and, in so far as this is a matter of drafting, we shall again consider it to make sure that we have achieved the purpose which we had in mind in this respect.
I was asked why there was no provision that the court should ascertain whether the national who is overseas—the executor or the person representative of the intestate, as the case may be—whether his consent is forthcoming to the application made by the consular officer. In point of fact, in the treaty itself that we have entered into with the United States, I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that, at the bottom of page 13 of the treaty, there is provision enabling the court to postpone the making of the grant to the consular officer for such time as he thinks necessary to enable the person represented by the consular officer to be informed. That particular provision is not reproduced in the terms of the Clause that we have drawn.
In practice, the substance of the matter is that, before the consular officer in fact applied for a grant, he would have to ascertain whether it was the desire of the overseas national that that should be done. It is most unlikely that he would do it off his own bat without reference to those on whose behalf he was asking for the grant to act. In substance the matter would not occur as a practical difficulty. This is a matter which could be more fully investigated during the Committee stage of the Bill.
My hon. Friend asked what exactly was being done under Clause 1. The main answer which I give to that is that the procedure which is provided for in Clause 1 (1) is ancillary to what is already the existing practice under the existing legislation. That is to say, the person who is abroad can follow the existing practice if he likes. It is only if he takes

no steps that the consular officer will make an application; and that position is specifically provided for by the proviso in Subsection (2). My hon. Friend makes the suggestion that there should be a time limit. That is a suggestion which we heard with interest and we shall certainly bear it in mind. It is a matter which we have considered but we shall again consider it.
A number of other detailed issues were raised. The matters of detail no doubt the House will desire to consider in a later stage of the Bill. They become more technical and more detailed, and I feel that the House would not desire me at this stage to embark on a full discussion on such matters. I believe that I have covered the points of principle. In Clause 4, which is the Clause which rests upon principle, I hope that I have satisfied the House that we have not committed ourselves to anything which is unwise or incautious. In Clause 1 we have simply made it possible to implement this treaty which we have with the United States and any other States with which we may enter into treaty. We have provided for an additional and ancillary procedure not altogether different from that provided for by the Act of 1861, but improving upon it—particularly in the respect that we now consider the nationality of the beneficiary as distinct from the nationality of the deceased person.
No questions were asked about the Clause dealing with the estates of merchant seamen, but no doubt that will be the subject of further questions hereafter. For the moment I make no further comment upon that. We are grateful for the questions which have been asked about drafting, and we shall look into them. In the meantime, I hope the House thinks that the Bill has, in point of principle, been sufficiently justified, and feels that it is now able to agree to the Second Reading.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman concludes, may I again put to him the general point on which I concluded my speech? Does he think that the passage of domestic law on a matter like this tends to undermine the general corpus of international law relating to the treatment of consular officers? We should like to be reassured on that point before we support the Second Reading.

The Solicitor-General: I do not really think it can be said that there is any danger of that. In these matters of international law one is constantly faced with the difficulty that there is a great deal of uncertainty on exactly what it is. We are here endeavouring to bring some measure of certainty into a very uncertain realm of that law. I do not feel that there really is any ground for the fear which the right hon. Gentleman expresses, that, in introducing this very modest but very useful measure for the purpose of implementing an agreement we have already entered into, and others that we hope to enter into, we are in any sense undermining in international law the status and position of consular officers.

Mr. Butler: It does not envisage, for example, that our consular officers in other countries with which we have not conventions, might be submitted to difficulty, and that domestic law will in the end spring up in all countries to take the place of international practice?

The Solicitor-General: All I can say is that that again is an angle from which the matter has been considered, but we cannot at the moment see any reason for thinking that that is a real danger, and that we ought for that reason to alter our course in introducing this Bill. We do not really think that is a danger.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.22 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is concerned with a matter of considerable importance to us, and indeed to most of the world: the drain on our food supplies caused by the depredations of certain pests. It replaces and makes a number of improvements to and modifications in the Rats and Mice

(Destruction) Act, 1919, and the Infestation Order of 1943. The immediate purpose of this Bill is twofold: to make good deficiencies in existing legislation for the control of rats and mice; and to make permanent provision for preventing loss of food from infestation by insects and mites. The Bill applies to Scotland, and as my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture have had considerable discussions with various groups and interests I do not think we need expect any objections in principle; indeed, I hope that will be so, although we shall of course be glad to hear individual points which will no doubt be raised.
To begin with, let me say something about the world problem, which is in fact the general background of the problem with which this Bill seeks to deal. We as an importing nation, and at the same time one of the world's primary producing nations, are vitally interested in this problem of infestation and the depredations into our food supplies by pests, both in its international aspect and in its particular application here at home. Our dependence on food supplies from outside means that we must play our part very fully and vigorously indeed in the activities now going on in the Food and Agriculture Organisation and other organisations, to secure vigorous action against pests in other countries so that the exportable food surpluses of the world may be increased and the demands upon them decreased. Also, we have to take care to secure, so far as we can, reductions in the importation of pests in the food supplies that come here, not only in order to reduce the wastage of those food supplies as they are coming here, but to guard our own home produced and home stored food supplies against depredations from foreign seaborne pests coming in in our imported supplies.
I was interested to see if one could state at all dramatically the size of this world problem. At the F.A.O. conference in London in 1947 the experts of the 26 member States tried their hand at estimating the size of the problem. Their view was that in cereals alone the volume of loss from pest infestation was not less than 10 per cent. of the total world production. They further tried their hand at turning that into some other


figure, and their calculation was that, in 1947 the loss of bread grains and rice totalled no less than 33 million tons. Thirty-three million tons of food would represent the major part of the rations of something like 160 million people for a year, or, put in another way, of perhaps the whole of the population of Latin America from North Mexico to Cape Horn; or of far more than the population of the African Continent; or it might even represent the rations of the people of this country for four whole years. And cereals and rice are not the only things attacked. Oil seeds, cocoa and dried fruits are all very strongly attacked by pests of this kind.
Therefore, as a world problem it is a very serious one indeed at a time when human pressures upon the world supplies of food are bound to increase at a rather more rapid rate than the supplies of food will increase to meet that growing pressure. In this country the loss is well below 10 per cent. of our total stocks, partly due to our own particular conditions, and partly due to the fact that we have tackled this problem with rather more energy in recent years than some other people. Nevertheless, a 10 per cent. loss in our total stocks is obviously for us, now and for some time to come, a matter of very serious concern, particularly since it is largely a preventable drain upon our resources.
That is the background of the Bill which I have the honour to introduce on its Second Reading. The Bill is itself divided into three parts, and I thought it might be useful to the House if I said a word or two about each part in turn. Part I deals specifically with the problem of making provisions for the better control of rats and mice. We lose in this country something of the order of two million tons of food a year in this way; it might be rather more, but as far as we can tell it is about two million tons a year. How many rats and mice do it we cannot tell. All we do know is that there are far too many of them. I am told that a rat eats probably some 50 lb. of food a year, but fouling and spillage plus its eating will be responsible for wastage at the rate of not less than 1½ cwt. per year, so that it is clearly a sizeable problem.
Few people are fond of rats, and most will agree about their extermination. But

many—of whom I confess I am not one—feel less repugnance towards mice, the
wee sleekit, cow'rin', tim'rous beastie,
about which Burns wrote. But that "wee tim'rous beastie" is, nevertheless, the creature which enters anywhere and multiplies rapidly wherever it can find food and living room. A little while ago an interesting case came my way when officers of our Department found it necessary to fumigate a small building containing a small quantity of barley which had been there for a short time. After fumigation no fewer than 600 dead mice were picked up in the building; and no doubt when the sacks are removed considerably more will be found. In one case recently, after fumigating treatment 30 infant mice were found in one nest. I am told that the total progeny of a single female, which comes to maturity very early, may exceed 100 in the course of a year. So the problem of the mice population is a very difficult and important one indeed.
The provisions of Part I have been worked out in consultation with the various national associations of local authorities, with the result that we have on this Bill, as on so many of our Measures, been able to get agreement on the broad design. The relevant Act in this field is the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, under which the primary duty to destroy rats and mice was placed on the individual occupiers of premises, but only to the extent that action by the occupier could be held to be "reasonably practicable." The sole duty upon the local authority was to enforce that rather limited requirement against the individual occupier, where it was "reasonably practicable" for the occupier to take action. The local authority had no power to do what was required because of that weakness. The Act largely fell into disuse.

Mr. Alpass: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has referred to consultations with the representatives of local authorities. Can he tell the House whether the County Councils' Association, which is deeply interested in this question, was also consulted?

Mr. Brown: The consultation included all the appropriate national associations of the local authorities, of which the association mentioned by my hon. Friend is


one. Under this Bill we are trying to remedy the obvious defects of the 1919 Act, and the primary duty and authority is placed on the local authority to secure satisfactory conditions throughout its district under the general supervision of the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend. Owners as well as occupiers are made responsible for complying with requirements where it is appropriate that that responsibility should be laid on them.
Clause 1 defines the local authorities for the purposes of Part I as being those responsible for the local public and port health services. It seemed to us that the right thing to do was to tie up this question with the public health services. Under the 1919 Act, powers were vested in the county councils with the right of delegation to borough, urban and rural district councils. Under this Bill the duties are not placed on the county councils but on the borough, urban and rural district councils, in addition to the Common Council of the City of London, the Metropolitan borough councils and the county borough councils. In Scotland, the responsible local authorities will remain as in the 1919 Act; the county councils and the councils of large burghs, with the addition of the only port local authority in Scotland, Glasgow.
Clause 2 charges the local authorities with the clear duty of maintaining proper conditions throughout their districts. Clause 3 provides that occupiers are required to give notice to the local authority if a substantial number of rats and mice are on their premises. This requirement to give notice does not preclude the occupier himself from taking action, and we hope that he will do so. The purpose is to limit the amount of inspection of private property and the number of officials engaged on such work. Agricultural land is treated rather differently, in that it is exempt from notification since it must be presumed that agricultural land can never be entirely free from the presence of rats and mice in substantial numbers. Other premises may be exempted administratively if it is felt that similar conditions of rat attraction may normally be expected.
Clause 4 authorises local authorities to serve notices upon owners or occupiers requiring necessary steps to be taken, subject always to a right of appeal to the

court where structural work is ordered. Should a person fail to comply with these requirements when he has received a direction notice from the local authority, the local authority may then carry out the work and debit the cost to the defaulting owner or occupier. There is provision under Clause 5 for penalties for failure to comply with a notice properly and duly delivered. One of the problems is how to ensure that we get at the root of the trouble. For instance, an occupier of a house or factory may well be killing off pests on his premises which are breeding on some other premises.
Clause 6 provides therefore that where there is a block of property comprising separate occupancies it shall be treated as one unit for the destruction of rats and mice in a comprehensive operation, and power is given to a local authority to enter after seven days' notice to carry out the necessary treatment and to apportion the cost over the several occupiers. The power of this Clause does not extend to the execution of structural work. For that purpose we still have to proceed under the powers of Clause 4. Clause 7 makes a useful provision for recovery of expenses incurred by a local authority under Clauses 5 and 6.
Clause 8 empowers the Minister to make regulations requiring steps to be taken to prevent the escape of rats or mice from ricks at the time of threshing or dismantling. This makes no change to the existing situation, but gives permanent effect to the powers we already operate as a result of orders under the Defence Regulations. As a result of putting duties under this Part of the Bill upon owners and occupiers, it will be necessary for the local authorities to be able to get information about the nature of the interest in the land of the persons concerned, and Clause 9 will enable this to be done.
Since we are placing so many duties upon the local authorities, it seems to us to be necessary to provide some financial relief against the additional expenditure they will incur as a result of vigorously carrying out these duties. Therefore, Clause 11 gives power, subject to compliance with such conditions as, with the consent of the Treasury, the Minister may prescribe, for grants to be made equal to one half of the net expenditure incurred by local authorities.
Clause 12 is of the utmost importance. It is of the utmost importance that there should be systematic action so that the good work in one district shall not be prejudiced by indifference in other districts nearby. It is necessary, therefore, that the functions of the local authorities should be exercised in such a manner as to conform to the general requirements. Accordingly, this Clause enables the Minister to give directions to the local authorities with power for him to take action in default of compliance. Local authorities are given the right to be heard before default orders are made.
This Bill has particular application to those concerned with manufacturing, storing, transporting and selling food, and it contains provisions for the prevention of loss of food by infestation. It would be as well if I attempted to define the word "infestation." It means the presence of rats, mice, insects or mites in a number or under conditions which involve an immediate or potential risk of substantial loss of or damage to food.

Mr. Turton: Does that include cheese?

Mr. Brown: I am not sure whether the hon. Member normally eats blue cheese, but I think we will leave that little bit of infestation for his enjoyment.
We are dealing here with the special problem in relation to insects and mites resulting from free conveyance of many destructive species in the primary food supplies we import. As ships move about the oceans they are liable, unless proper action is taken, to build up in their cargo spaces populations of numerous kinds of destructive insects which attack new cargoes taken on board. The development of insect life proceeds on the voyage, it being particularly rapid in cargoes moving through the tropics. The result is that infestation of varying intensity is present in almost all raw food commodities when they reach our ports. Before the war this had been going on for many years, and destructive species had, in fact, spread and established themselves in many of our warehouses, mills and stores. They have a high rate of reproduction and they proceed to consume or spoil our food. The infestation of cereals, particularly of grain and cereal offals, has been a cause of great concern to commercial interests.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in 1938–40 conducted a survey of this problem which clearly demonstrated that imported insects were carried through trading channels and on to our farms, where in turn they infested home-grown grain destined for mills and for maltings. The position during the war has to a large extent not made the problem any less. In order to deal with this we are working at the moment under temporary powers derived from the Defence Regulations. It seems vitally important that permanent powers should be made available to provide for the continuance and intensification of the work, and that we are now doing. Accordingly, the provisions of Part II of the Bill are based very largely on the provisions of the Infestation Order, 1943, although there are certain important modifications. One of these is that whereas the order relates to everybody, Part II of the Bill restricts the obligations to food undertakers, and the functions of Part II will be exercised by the Minister as against the functions under Part I being exercised by the local authorities.
Clause 13, which is the beginning of this Part of the Bill, provides that food traders, subject to certain exceptions, shall give notification to the Minister where infestation is present in stocks of food in food premises, in transport or other equipment used in connection with food. In that sense it follows the example of Clause 3 in respect of rats and mice, except that notification is given direct to the Minister and not to the local authority. With a view to the prevention of the spread of infestation, the Minister is empowered to make regulations, after consultation with the appropriate trading interests, for controlling the movement of notifiable commodities. One of the necessities in this respect is to prevent the spread of the pests and at the same time not to interfere with, or hold up, the necessary transport of traffic at the ports. In the exercise of this power, full regard will be paid to the necessity for avoiding the interruption of essential food supplies, or interference with the working of the ports, or the prompt turn-round of ships.
Clause 14 states that the Minister will continue to have the authority he now possesses under temporary powers to issue directions for the control of the use


of infested premises, or, the use of premises for storing infested commodities, and for the application of appropriate measures for remedying and preventing infestation. There is also provision under Clause 14 enabling the Minister to direct the destruction of food or food containers if they are so infested as to be beyond remedy by any form of treatment.
Clause 15 gives the right of appeal to the courts against directions which may be issued under Clause 14, which require either the carrying out of structural works or the destruction of food or food containers. Clause 16 provides that where there is a failure to comply with a direction the Minister may authorise entry and execution of the work at the expense of the person in default, corresponding to the similar powers under Part I of the Bill. Clause 17 lays down the penalties to be enforced in respect of offences under the Bill. Clause 18 will interest the House. It enables the Minister under this Part of the Bill to delegate the functions which he has to carry out to willing and competent local authorities. He may then reimburse them so far as expenses incurred by those local authorities are not otherwise recoverable. The question of how and when to delegate powers, will be one to be considered in each case, and I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend will delegate only where he is satisfied that the local authority is able and willing to carry out the duty properly.
Part III of the Bill, which is from Clause 19 onwards, is devoted to general provisions for the carrying out of the functions and duties of the first two Parts of the Bill. In Clause 19 power is given to the Minister to ensure that methods employed by businesses furnishing pest control services shall conform to approved standards. This is quite obviously consistent with the policy of insuring that the utilisation of modern scientific knowledge and efficiency, which shall be rendered to the public, shall be, in fact, in accordance with the generally accepted standards. I do not think there will be any objection to the provisions of that Clause. Indeed, in some way it is less onerous on the undertakers than is the Infestation Order, 1943, which it replaces.
Clause 20 is interesting. There is a definite duty placed upon local authorities

under Clause 2 to ensure that their districts are kept free from rats and mice. This duty must apply to agricultural as well as to urban land. Clause 20, indeed, provides that where notices requiring destruction of rats and mice may be served under Clause 4 of the Bill, they shall not be served under Section 98 of the Agricultural Act, 1947. The effect of this is to have one authority responsible in its area for the destruction of rats and mice, and to remove from the county agricultural executive committees the responsibility for enforcing statutory requirements in respect of rats and mice under that Section. We ought to make it clear that the county agricultural executive committee's power with regard to other pests is left unaltered, and they will still be able to provide pest destruction services to farmers on repayment terms under the provisions of Section 101 of the Agriculture Act, 1947.
Of the remaining Clauses only one calls for comment, and that is Clause 23. In view of the special conditions which obtain in the cases of vessels and aircraft, this Clause expressly provides that the application of the provisions of this Bill, subject to such exceptions and modifications as circumstances may necessitate, shall be by Order in Council. The provisions of Part I shall not be applied in the case of vessels trading or going between places in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. I hope that this rather brief examination of the Bill will show that provisions are essential to mitigate the enormous and very serious loss of food through the ravages of these pests.

Mr. Austin: Is it the intention of my hon. Friend to refer to Clause 21, which states that the Bill is not to become effective until 31st March, 1950. If the matter is so urgent, why have we to wait another year before we put it into operation?

Mr. Brown: The work is now going on under regulations and there will have to be considerable discussion to bring the Bill properly into operation. Those consultations will have to take place with all sorts of people who are closely affected, and we feel that there will have to be that amount of time before we can get the Act, when it becomes such, into force.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend used the phrase, "destruction of rats and mice and everything else." Does that include foxes?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that under the Agriculture Act, 1947, my right hon. Friend has all the powers he needs to deal with foxes and there is no need to reinforce those powers. I have made the point clear about Clause 20. We are progressing as vigorously as we can, but until we get the Bill we cannot draft and make the regulations. The date is put in with that reason in mind.
It is clearly impracticable to eliminate the whole of the loss but by vigorous work here and elsewhere in the world we can sensibly diminish the loss, to the benefit not only of ourselves but of every country in the world. We have played a very worthy part in this as in all other aspects of the work of the Food and Agriculture Organisation in urging vigorous work on the international plane. It is very important and proper that in our own land we should intensify our own attention to the problem in order that our lead elsewhere may be built up and become a much stronger moral lead. It is in this context that I have great pleasure in commending the Bill to the House, and I hope that it will be accorded a unanimous Second Reading.

5.51 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary upon the manner in which he has introduced the Bill. We have become accustomed to hearing him winding up Debates on behalf of his Ministry during recent months, but this is the first occasion on which he has introduced a Bill, and we offer him our sincere congratulations on the manner in which he presented it.
The Parliamentary Secretary explained that the object of the Bill is to replace and amend the provisions of the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, and to give further statutory authority to certain Defence Regulations which have been continued during the last year or so under the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. I say at once on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we support the principle of

the Bill, as we are very conscious of the loss of food of all kinds caused by the species of pests coming within the ambit of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary gave some very interesting F.A.O. figures about the loss in world production. It is astonishing that possibly 10 per cent. of the world production of cereals is lost to human beings by the action of pests. The Parliamentary Secretary said that, as far as figures for this country could be assessed, probably upwards of two million tons annually were lost by this country through these animals.
The Bill has already received a very thorough and close examination in another place, and I. believe that its examination there and the Amendments that have been made since its introduction by the Government have considerably improved it. However, I have several comments to make upon it in regard to both principle and detail. Part I deals exclusively with rats and mice, and we are all agreed that it is an improvement on the 1919 Act because it removes the direct onus for the destruction of rats and mice from the individual and places it upon the local authority. This is clearly stated in Clause 2 (1), but much discussion took place in another place concerning the interpretation of the word "infestation." That word is now omitted from Part I, but Clause 3 (1) states that:
The occupier of any premises shall give to the local authority forthwith notice in writing if it comes to his knowledge that rats or mice are living on or resorting to the premises in substantial numbers.
I ask the House to note those words "substantial numbers." There is no doubt that the wording is an improvement on the original drafting, but we can and must do very much better than this before the Bill becomes an Act. A few words have been added to Clause 4, dealing with the power of local authorities, which make it more difficult to comprehend. The Clause speaks of:
Rats or mice resorting to any land … or are likely to resort thereto in substantial numbers.
Surely it is beyond the wit of man to assess whether rats or mice are likely to resort to any particular premises?

Mr. Sargood: Is it not the case that certain forms of commerce will attract rats and mice.

Sir T. Dugdale: There may be certain very specific instances, but the Bill refers to the whole population and the ordinary citizen in his own home. Ordinary citizens will hold very different views about the word "substantial." Ordinary citizens hold very varied opinions about rats. Some citizens are horrrified at the sight of one rat and there are other people, I am told, who see many rats which do not exist at all. The wording here gives rise to a problem. The House will also agree that there may be very varied opinions as to whether there are on any particular premises a substantial number of mice. Again we go back to the word "substantial." If one mouse which comes out of the wall finds a carpet which it likes, it may result in havoc which the following morning might easily lead one to suppose that a substantial number of mice had been destroying the carpet, whereas in fact there was only one. It is very difficult for either an ordinary citizen or a local authority to decide if rats and mice are in substantial numbers. This phrase is very ambiguous and at a later stage we must examine the phraseology very carefully and improve it.
I want to ask a question about Clause 4 (3) which refers to agricultural land. In the last passage of his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to Clause 20. It is not clear how this subsection links up with Clause 20, which amends the Agriculture Act, 1947. I gather that the provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947, relating to rats and mice do not apply to Part I of this Bill. Is that correct or not? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question when he replies. When subsection (3) is read in conjunction with Clause 20, it is not easy to see what the position is. All hon. Members will welcome Clause 8. It makes permanent the provisions of two Defence Regulations dealing with the threshing and dismantling of ricks, which commends itself to the House. This provision was not in the old 1919 Act and the Defence Regulations on this question have been helpful in saving a lot of grain.
May I refer to a wider aspect, the financial provisions of the Bill, because I am sure the House will agree that it is our duty to examine carefully all expenditure of public money, however, desirable the object may be. There seems at

the moment to be a feeling in some quarters that if one questions the amount of money spent on any subject, it means that one is against the objects of the Measure. My hon. Friends and I favour the objects of this Bill, but we think that what it will cost should be examined on the Floor of the House.
It would appear from the Ministry of Agriculture Vote for 1948–49 that infestation control cost £183,472 for salaries and a further £480,000 for services, making a total of £663,472. That is only one section of the cost. To that, under a different part of the Vote, we must add the cost of pest control. That cost £121,000 for salaries and £530,000 for wages and materials, a total of £651,000. From what I have said, hon. Members will appreciate that the total cost, according to the Civil Estimates for 1948–49, amounted to the large sum of just over £1,300,000.

Mr. Alpass: May I ask a question on that point? In my county we make a large number of contracts with farmers and others for destruction, and in some years we actually make a profit. Are those net or gross figures of expenditure?

Sir T. Dugdale: The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) and I always seem to think on the same lines because that is the information I want to elicit from the Minister. My first question is whether the Minister of Agriculture is satisfied that the country is getting value for money, as this would appear to be a large sum to spend upon rats and mice, insects and mites, unless he is wholly satisfied on this matter. Then I come on to the point of the hon. Member for Thornbury, and I ask the Minister to tell us how much of this sum is recoverable from farmers and other members of the community for works done by the pest officer in their own area. Is he satisfied that the amounts recovered from these large figures are approximately satisfactory county by county, or is the position in, say, the part of the world represented by the hon. Member for Thornbury good, and 80 per cent. of the money spent is recovered, and in other parts bad, and they get only 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. back? The House should be informed of the position.
In reply to the question whether the figures I have quoted are gross or net, I have gone into the details of these


figures because, on looking at the Ministry of Agriculture Vote for 1938–39, I found that money voted for insects and pests during those years amounted to £420 in 1938 and £610 in 1939. There has thus been an enormous increase. These latter figures do not include salaries, I believe, but were for actual services rendered. However, they are infinitesimal compared with the enormous sums we are now spending.
I have one further point of principle to make on this part of the Bill. It was touched upon by the Parliamentary Secretary but I am not certain, and my hon. Friends are anxious about it. I refer to the overlap between the pest control officers working under the county agricultural executive committees and those working under local authorities. For example, let the House consider the case of an ordinary rural district anywhere in Great Britain. The pest officer under the agricultural committee is doing good work—certainly in the cases of which I have experience—in killing rats in the hedgerows and on the farms. However, he has no authority to deal with rats in the villages. Although it may be perfectly clear to him that he can clear up all the rats in one area, he has no authority to follow the remnants and clean up the villages because they are the responsibility of the officer who is under the local authority.
The officer working for the local authority probably does not attend the same area as the pest officer of the agricultural committee at the same time. There is much overlapping in their work, and this must be the time when that difficulty should be cleared up. Therefore I ask the Minister to deal with this point, and I hope he will be able to assure the House that the opportunity is being taken to co-ordinate these two bodies in order that they may go forward, not getting in each other's way, but being helpful to each other and under a common head. Looking to the future, probably the right head is the local authority.
Now I turn to Part II, which deals specifically with the infestation of food. In this part of the Bill the word "infestation" is used. The Parliamentary Secretary read out the definition which is now embodied in Clause 27. That was put into the Bill as a result of the discussions in another place, and my hon. Friends take

the view that the new definition is a great improvement on the original. Clause 14 (4) empowers the Minister to give orders for the destruction of infested cereals. These are wide and important powers, and my hon. Friends and I feel strongly that before any such order is given the matter should be referred to a panel of arbitrators to advise the Minister whether destruction is justified, or whether the infestation could be stopped through treatment such as fumigation. There appears to be no provision in this Clause, or elsewhere in the Bill, for such arbitration, and I hope the Minister will deal with this point when he replies. It is true that under Clause 15 provision is made for appeals to magistrates' courts against such directions, but the activities of weevils are hardly likely to wait for such deliberations. The whole House will agree that infestation is something which should be dealt with on the spot immediately.

Mr. G. Brown: That has been answered by the Clause.

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think so because the procedure would take too long. Arbitration bodies should be set up which could deal quickly with cases and take decisions, in order to obviate any delay such as the magistrates' courts procedure would entail. This question of weevils is the only aspect of the Bill about which there may be any controversy. I should like to know whether the Minister, under Part II of the Bill, will be able to deal with the existing deplorable situation regarding stored barley. As long ago as 13th December last my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked the Minister of Food:
What quantity of imported barley has been in store since 1st May, 1948; and how much of this is now infested with weevil.
The Minister of Food replied:
About 72,000 tons of imported barley have been in store since 1st May. 1948. We have had trouble with weevil in about 35,000 tons Of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 816.]
It will be agreed on all sides of the House that this is a very serious state of affairs. Will the Minister, who is responsible for the operation of the Measure, be able to deal with a position of that kind? In other words, under Clause 14 can he treat another Government Department as an occupier or


ordinary individual when he finds, in the occupation of a building by another Ministry, abundant proof of infestation by weevil? If he cannot remedy the complaint by releasing the barley to help the feedingstuffs ration, can he order its destruction to prevent its infesting other barley, if no other form of treatment is possible? I hope we may be assured that, in this aspect at least, there will be co-ordination between the Ministers of Food and Agriculture.
Part III contains supplemental Clauses. I have already referred briefly to Clause 20 and asked for information about the amendments to the Agriculture Act, 1947. I would refer also, as did the Parliamentary Secretary, to Clause 23. We on this side are glad to note that as a result of Debates in another place this Clause has been introduced which lays down that the provisions of the Bill shall be applied to shipping only by Order in Council. This will ensure that in giving such directions as he may consider necessary the Minister of Agriculture must consult with the Ministry of Transport. We are wholeheartedly behind the Government in their endeavours to stop the destruction of food by mice and kindred animals and shall devote ourselves particularly to the detailed provisions to ensure that the proposals contained in the Bill are carried out in the most economical and efficient manner.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Alpass: There can be no doubt whatever that any steps which can be taken to reduce the numbers of rats and mice will be to the great advantage of the country. I have had some little experience in this connection because for some years during the war I was Chairman of my county urban pests committee. We set up a very efficient rats and pests department, with a very competent county pests officer and his assistants. We were successful in entering into agreements with local authorities throughout the county who allowed us to undertake the important work of rats and mice destruction on their behalf.
I am wondering whether the new machinery envisaged in the Bill will work as effectively as that system has proved to be, certainly in my county. All local

authorities are not equally energetic in carrying out their duties. Without reflecting upon any of them, I found that some local authorities took a much greater interest in this problem than did others. I am hoping for more information when the Minister replies, but, as I see it, it will be necessary for all local authorities to establish their own pests departments, necessitating the appointment of pests officers and other individuals.
I do not attach too much importance to the cost of these steps because the advantage to be gained in saving food will outweigh any reasonable cost which is entailed. I am, however, wondering whether these new offices when set up will be efficient and economical in attaining the objects we all desire. I am not very much in favour of local authorities, especially the smaller authorities, having to appoint their own officers to carry out certain important duties, because not all of them have the necessary financial resources. It is for that reason, perhaps, that they do not always carry out their obligations as one would wish.
The adequate and efficient inspection of premises is absolutely necessary if the objects of the Bill are to be achieved. In my own county this inspection is carried out very thoroughly. We do not wait to be informed by people that premises are infested, for very often infestation is discovered by our inspectors in the course of their duties. I should like the Minister to say whether he thinks the new set-up—placing the duty upon local authorities rather than allowing county councils to operate in conjunction with them—is the best method of dealing with this evil.
I hope the efficient operation of the Bill will result in a great diminution of the tremendous losses now being suffered in the destruction of food and that we shall be able to look forward to a much more satisfactory state of affairs in both the elimination of pests and the conservation of food.

6.20 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I agree that this is a very important Measure, and that, in general principle, we are in support of the Government. I also agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) that the


wording is a little strange in places. I do not want to expatiate about the word "substantial" as applied to rats and mice. I admit that I love the picture of rats and mice "living on or resorting to premises in substantial numbers." My schoolboy days and memories of the Pied Piper come welling up I see the picture of rats and mice "resorting" to one's farm, and it is a wonderful picture. I am reminded of the man who was sitting at the Zoo when another man rushed up to him and said "There's a moose loose." He merely turned round and asked "Are you talking Scots or English?" I think that gives the House some idea of the danger of using the word "substantial" in relation to rats and mice. There are heavy penalties involved in Clause 5, and that makes the question of what is or is not "substantial" one of considerable importance. It may be a very difficult thing to get the right word to describe what we mean, and the question whether "substantial" is the right word or not is one which we may discuss in some detail at a later stage.
In Clause 12, and throughout the Bill, there is a tendency to take away rather unduly from the powers of the local authorities. I am wondering whether we should not pass a Bill like this, tell the local authorities to get on with it and leave them to do the job, because, after all, local authorities are very conscientious people and I think their powers are being more and more filched from them by the central Government. I should like the Government to give consideration to the idea of leaving them to do the job, when I think they will find, particularly in rural areas, that the local authorities are fully competent to deal with this Bill when it is passed into law.
I think perhaps it was a little typical of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that he, being a good Socialist, made no mention of Clause 22 which deals with the power of entry. The Clause was passed by without mention at all, but I hope we shall be given every safeguard in the matter of power of entry, because we wish to make certain that this power is properly used; it is becoming already too frequent in the country today. In Clause 25 and elsewhere, I should like it to be clearly stated in the Bill itself that these penalties and restrictions on all matters which affect the private owner will equally affect any Government

Department or Ministry which is in the position of an owner either of property or of foodstuffs. Government Departments must not be allowed to get away with it when the private individual is penalised.
In Clause 27, we have some more interesting linguistic trouble, for we are told that "land includes land covered with water." The picture of the Minister and his disinfestation officers claiming a right of entry on to land covered with water suggests possibilities that might be well worth seeing. I see the Minister, water wings in his hands, going to land covered with water, and with his disinfestation officers, his rodent officers and even the humble rat-catcher following him up. It is a wonderful picture Is it sensible to talk about "land covered with water," because it leads one to think of a very big problem? There is the question of infestation by water-rats, which is a very important matter to those concerned with river banks and so on. I ask whether this provision is intended to deal with that sort of thing or is merely to cover cases of flooded land. I really would like to have some explanation of what is meant by "land covered by water." After all, any loch or lake is land covered with water, and there are no limits. I think we should have some limits as to what kind of land covered by water is intended in the Bill. Then there is the question of the right of entry on any land, which is dealt with in another Clause, and we are told that land includes any buildings or part of a building. It seems to me that we are getting on to more dangerous ground here because there is an important principle involved in the limits of buildings to which there is a right of entry.
In general, I still bitterly regret, as I did on a previous occasion, that the question of infestation by pests of all kinds is not taken up completely, but only in a piecemeal fashion. The fact of the matter is that every pest should be attacked at its source and should be prevented from appearing—not merely destroyed when it does appear and that is an unfortunate limitation about this Bill. I should like to have seen, in addition to rats and mice, the mole included as a pest, because the effect of the activities of moles is simply tremendous. Certainly in my part of the world the mole problem is a very serious one.


Next comes the question of weeds. The last time such a Bill came before the House, I was in despair because it dealt with rats and mice and weeds, but not insects. This time, it deals with rats and mice and insects, but not weeds.
It does not seem to me that we shall ever get a real grip of the problem unless we realise that there are pests of many kinds affecting food production, the health of our people and the fertility of the land, and we must take them all as a serious problem and prevent them from appearing. In all our legislation on this subject, we are only tackling the problem at half volley, and I hope that something will be done to include the whole of these pests. On another occasion, I once went into the question of what might constitute other pests, and I did mention that I thought that the man who went about squirting poison of all kinds on the land was the worst pest of the lot, and I still think so.
I welcome this Bill, and I think it will be welcomed in Scotland. I see that Scotland gets a mention in it, and that is always nice. I notice that in Scotland the interpretation of a "rick" shall be that of a "stack," but I ask the Minister whether it also includes a "soo."

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I would like to say how much I appreciated the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing this Bill and explaining some of its purposes, which at first had seemed somewhat obscure to me. I speak as one who is interested in this Bill and who has killed thousands of rats. I hate the sight of them on a farm or in any place of human habitation, and one of my regrets is that in recent months, through my attendance at this House, I have not been able to exterminate the rats on my own farm.

Mr. G. Brown: Shame.

Mr. Dye: It is a shame, I quite agree, and I am glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say so, because I had a contract with his Department under which they were to destroy them all. In spite of that, the rats have increased. When I found all these rats about, I was worried and I wondered why his officers did not come along and kill them. I found out that they had called one day when I was

out and that they had left a little piece of paper. I also discovered that, until I signed three or four papers three or four times, his officers are not able to come along to kill those rats.
This has to be done each year. If we are to have a service for the destruction of rats, surely it must be continuous, and if a farmer wishes to engage the services of Ministry of Agriculture officers for the destruction of pests, he ought to be able to enter into a continuing contract so that they can give continuous service. Quite recently my daughter told me that in cycling to school one morning she counted along about one and a half miles of road no fewer than 12 dead rats which had been killed during the night. It is an indication of the number of rats in the neighbourhood, if motor cars, in the hours of darkness, run over and kill a dozen rats in that distance. It shows that there is this problem in Norfolk, and we desire to find a solution for it.
In studying this Bill it seems to me that it puts on the local authority the onus for destroying the rats and mice in its neighbourhood. Our trouble is that the district and urban councils in the county are rather small and are unable to employ a sufficient number of skilled staff to do the job. All those available in the country of Norfolk have been employed by the Ministry of Agriculture. If, therefore, the councils have wanted a job done they have had to enter into a contract with the Ministry for the latter to send their men along to do it. As has been pointed out by an hon. and gallant Member opposite, a difficulty arises because officers of the Ministry of Agriculture are limited to agricultural land whereas the rat is not. In a village the rat can be on the farm or among the cottages. When an effort is being made to exterminate the rats in a neighbourhood, those undertaking the task need to be able to cover the whole area, village and farms together, without any distinction. Otherwise, people who are endeavouring to exterminate the rat, using different methods, will prevent the other people from being successful in their task. It is, therefore, most essential that it should be possible to cover a whole neighbourhood.
The question of a large enough staff to undertake the task arises. It is not merely a question of one man. In the


case of there being a large number of rats on farms and in the villages, it might be necessary to bring in a number of people to make a thorough job of it.

Mr. Turton: Or a dog or two.

Mr. Dye: A dog or two can clean up a rat or two, but if there are hundreds of rats they can breed faster than a dog or two can deal with them. A good cat is most valuable in dealing with rats, but as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, one doe will produce a litter of a dozen every six weeks and rear them. In the course of being reared they will destroy many chickens and much grain. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) drew attention to the words "in substantial numbers" It is said that where rats are believed to be or are found in substantial numbers, action should be taken. That is too late. We should not begin attempting to exterminate rats when they are in substantial numbers at any given place, because they do not congregate in any one spot. If there is a large number of rats on any one farm there are bound to be some in the neighbourhood. From the national point of view it would be much better to have six men chasing two rats than to have two men trying to deal with thousands of rats.
Extermination as soon as possible should be the aim. With the means of modern science it ought now to be possible to exterminate rats and mice in this country—to take areas and work from them and completely exterminate both pests in the course of a few years. To deal continually with congregations of rats in different places is not sufficient to deal with the problem. In dealing with farm buildings, certain granaries and other buildings where grain is stored, we must pay more attention to the construction of rat-proof buildings if we are to deal successfully with this problem.
One of the difficulties we have had as a district council in dealing with the problem of rat destruction in our locality has been to collect the charges from a large number of occupiers or owners of property where an effort has been made to kill the rats. We have often found that difficulty. Having gone into innumerable cottage properties to destroy rats, the cost of collection of the charges has become exorbitantly high. That is

quite unnecessary, and it is of the utmost importance that the rats should be killed. If the local authority undertakes the task for all the people in its neighbourhood it should be a local charge and not an individual charge. I should like to see that made possible under this Bill.
Not only have I killed a great number of rats, but I served on the Pests Committee of the war agricultural executive committee for Norfolk for the greater part of the war. From that experience, and also as a result of a conference last year of all local authorities in Norfolk, together with the officers of the agricultural executive committee to consider this problem, the conclusion has been reached that rather than that the separate district councils should try to cope with the problem in their own localities it would be far better to have one authority for an area like Norfolk with the duty of destroying the rats throughout the neighbourhood. Therefore, when I see that in this Bill the onus is being put upon the district councils, and when I know that some of those councils have populations of about 3,000 or less, it seems to me that such an area is too small for the engagement of efficient staff. It would be better if it were done by the county as a whole and if one authority were to be able to employ the staff to do the task. I hope that when we consider this Bill in Committee we may be able to consider whether district councils might not ask the county council to undertake the task for the whole neighbourhood.

Brigadier Peto: Is the hon. Member aware that in the case of some district councils that is already being done?

Mr. Dye: I am aware of that, and it is because of the recommendations from the conference of authorities in Norfolk of which I was chairman, asking for that to be the future method, that I have raised the matter here.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: The hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) has raised one of the fundamental points of this Bill and I am in agreement with much of what he has said. On looking at some of the small local authorities, it would seem that the area which they control is too small to have a really efficient killing over a wide


enough space. That is one of the points which may be gone into in a fair criticism of and inquiry into this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) also appealed for unity in dealing with all pests. He referred to the mole as a pest and to the fact that it is not included in this Bill. The destruction which moles do is colossal, and I do not think that it is sufficiently realised. It would be far better that they should be destroyed now when moleskins may be valuable.
The hon. and gallant Member for Perth asked a question regarding land covered with water. If there is any land covered with water which is liable to produce, to hold and to spread rats, it is in tidal areas such as on the Dart, that most beautiful of rivers, or the Tay, the Clyde, the Thames or the Severn. Where there are tidal waters the production of rats is encouraged. It is made easier for them to travel, and dealing with them becomes more difficult.
Frankly, I do not think that this Bill goes far enough. It deals with two of the minor agricultural pests, rats and mice, and the second part of the Bill deals also with other pests. The trouble with both rats and mice is that they increase too quickly. But there is another sort of appalling pest which we have in agriculture in my part of the country, and indeed all over the country, and that is Government officials. It is my belief that they stop far more food production than anything in the way of rats and mice, and I should like to see included in the Bill the power to kill a very large number of Government officials, or to deal with them in some adequate way. If anything is done to hinder agriculture and to stop production it should be dealt with, and they, as well as rats and mice, do tend to lower the amount of food which we can produce in this country. If we could get the number of these pests back to the pre-war level and even lower, the farmers and those engaged on the land would have far more time to deal with rats and mice, and they would be able to grow much more corn.
I do not maintain that I am as great an expert as the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk in dealing with rats, but may I give one fairly simple illustration? I have no doubt whatever that pest

officers and professional killers of rats and mice can be of great value in a great many cases, but they can also be of less value. We should not only enlist the cooperation of people in the locality to use their time whenever they can to kill the odd rat and mouse which may be left behind, but we should also use what is obviously the best means of all for destroying rats before they increase into vast numbers, and that is the ordinary common cat. On my own farm we had a great deal of trouble with rats. A number were killed by the pest officers, but they always left some and others kept coming. We therefore thought the best way would be to have a good surplus of cats, and now we rarely see any rats at all. That is the best means of killing such lesser vermin. I cannot now discuss the only means of killing larger vermin. We should do a great deal more to encourage the owners of land to keep really good cats which would kill rats.
I was particularly interested when the Parliamentary Secretary read out Clause 4 (3), of the Bill, which says that the local authority can serve a notice and then they:
shall forthwith inform the county agricultural executive committee for the county in which the land is situated.
The mere sending of notices does not seem to be very valuable. It may, of course, relate to a farm over which there needs to be special supervision, but surely because a few rats have been reported on a farm it is not necessary to inform the agricultural executive committee and apparently expect them to take notice of it. It is no use doing it unless they do take notice.
With regard to Clause 3, I agree with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale). When we use the words "substantial numbers" we are putting something into the Bill which needs a greats deal more explanation than has yet been given. In the same way we want to know the number of officials who will come in under the Bill. At the end of the Financial Memorandum—which I will not discuss now—it says there will be e4 no significant increase" in expenses. What is a "significant increase"? To one right hon. Gentleman who is a Member of this House the £ means nothing.


It might cover 10 or 15 or even 20 million. To the present Exchequer it might mean several million. It might mean anything in these days when the Exchequer has such a very loose and careless hand on our national economy. At the proper stage we should endeavour to bring out some figure, and I have no doubt that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) will be able to do that.
There is also a point which has not been sufficiently noticed. Under Clause 8 there is power to deal with ricks. The whole point of this Bill is that certain war-time regulations, which have been in existence for a great many years, are now becoming part of our permanent Constitution. Although that may be good in the case of this Bill, I would point out that there is an ever-growing tendency on the part of this House to accept quite naturally as part of our permanent Constitution things which were introduced for specific war-time purposes. I am not at all sure that a vast amount of the work proposed to be done under this Bill, apart from the inspection of food, about which I will say something later, could not he much more efficiently done by ordinary individuals if they were encouraged to do it instead of being overburdened by rules and regulations which prevent them from carrying out their proper duties in connection with their farms.
There is a point in Clause 14 about which I should like to have some information. Clause 14 does not go nearly far enough. It goes far enough as regards the ordinary trader or the ordinary people of the country, and it gives the Minister certain power to deal with places where food is liable to be wasted. I believe that at the present time the places where food is most likely to be wasted are not under the control of the Co-operative Societies, or the big or little stores, but under the control of the Ministries and other Services. Under this Clause very much greater power should be given to the appropriate Minister to deal with wastage of food. That is a point which has already been touched upon by more than one hon. Member.
It is a well-known fact that at the present time we have vast reserves of sweets in this country. These reserves have been piled up over a period of many

months, and are obviously subject to destruction by mites, weevils or mice. Where stocks are deliberately held up like that by an incompetent Minister, there should surely be some means under a Measure of this sort of inflicting a penalty on the Minister concerned and of forcing him to release the natural food of the people instead of keeping it for release at the time of a by-election. I would draw the Patronage Secretary's attention to that point.
As hon. Members repeatedly point out in this House, there are quite needlessly great hold-ups of food by Ministries when it would obviously be better to release it. I am the last person to say that in time of war and danger we should not have adequate reserves of food, but where there is an over-stocking of food it is a great encouragement to vermin of all descriptions. I have said a few words in support of the Bill and a few more about the ways in which I think it might be improved; but, frankly, it is just one more Bill to lay burdens and instructions on this poor, wretched country of ours which at the moment is being governed by this really appalling Government.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I am sure the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will pardon me if I do not attempt to follow his somewhat imaginative discourse, or rather his flights of fancy, because one would be taken too far afield if one attempted to deal with them.
I should like to add my congratulations to those already extended to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the very able manner in which he submitted the Bill to the House, and I am sure that the Minister must be gratified at the reception which the Bill has received from hon. Members generally. It would be a mistake, however, to regard this Bill purely from the rural aspect which has been emphasised in the Debate so far. Great play has been made of the word "substantial" which appears in Clause 3. I know a family living in a house in a Metropolitan borough in which the rats are so numerous and so substantial in size that a small child of just under five years of age has had to be persuaded they are really kittens, in an attempt to assuage her anxiety. I am afraid there will be no difficulty in such circumstances


in determining whether the number is a substantial one or not.
This Bill is one of those very useful departmental Measures in regard to which there must have been a considerable amount of negotiation behind the scenes in order to get agreement. I am glad to hear that the Minister has had consultations with representatives of the various local authorities. I expect that will enable him to discount some of the pleading which has been submitted on behalf of the county councils. But I venture to submit to the Minister that this Bill does transfer the responsibilities from one set of authorities to another. In those circumstances, and in accordance with a well-established precedent, the Bill should contain provisions protecting the local government officer from any loss, etc., arising out of the transfer.
I also notice that there is a further power in Clause 12 (2) which enables the Minister to empower any person named in the order to exercise the functions of a local authority. I am sure the Minister would agree that it would be quite wrong, if a local authority is negligent in carrying out its duties and the Minister has to instruct someone else to carry them out, that the local government officer—who may have been anxious to get on with the job, but was prevented by a negligent local authority from doing so—should suffer. I suggest that in those circumstances the Minister might consider, when making an order, the protection of such an officer. I hope that the Minister will be able to give satisfactory assurances on those two points.
I wish to make one further point with regard to Clause 2, which deals with infestation. I remember when in the railway service how very carefully we watched cargoes of imported grain for any indication of weevil. Constant watch was also kept over grain stored in warehouses. I remember, too, how some of us had sleepless nights if weevil did appear. Very stringent measures were taken by the department to deal with infestation. Will the Minister exercise powers over the Transport Commission in regard to grain passing through docks or warehouses, or in transit, in order to watch for any trouble arising from weevils?
This is a very useful Bill, despite what has been said by one or two hon. Members. I believe it will help us in dealing with the very real problem arising from the destruction of foodstuffs. I wish the Minister well and hope that he will be able to assure me on the points I have raised.

7.1 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I thought the Joint Parliamentary Secretary rather pessimistic in some of the figures he gave. If rats were to eat food at the rate he estimated, I do not think there would be any stocks of corn on my farm, judging by the numbers of rats I have seen about it. I should like the Minister to clarify the actual responsibility for the destruction of rats. I know that it is all laid down in the Bill, but I have been trying to picture what would happen if a corn merchant's store in a small country town or village were subject to destruction by rats. The Bill places responsibility on local authorities to ensure that destruction of the rats is carried out, but it goes on to say that it is the obligation of occupiers of land to notify the local authorities of the presence of substantial numbers of vermin. We then find that the local authority can give instructions either to owners or occupiers of premises to take steps to get their rats destroyed or, if necessary, to carry out structural repairs to their buildings.
It may be that the owner or occupier—whoever is actually responsible—does not feel capable of destroying the rats, or of taking necessary steps to get them destroyed, and if he does nothing about it the local authority can carry out the work and charge him the cost. I want the Minister to explain how he visualises the destruction being carried out in the normal course of events. The ordinary householder or occupier of premises is not equipped to destroy rats, and no doubt he would sooner call in an expert, if experts were available. I want to know whether that is to be the general practice and whether each local authority is to make itself responsible for having expert rat catchers and the necessary equipment available for anyone who finds there is a lot of vermin on his premises.
I hope the Minister will enlarge on the powers he expects local authorities to take to enforce structural repairs, because the only sensible thing to do with a lot


of old premises is to pull the buildings down and rebuild. The only real security against these vermin is to make buildings of brick or concrete in such a way that rats and mice cannot get into them. I hope the Minister will say a few words about the powers of local authorities to enforce structural repairs, and what sort of costs it is thought fair to impose on owners or occupiers of premises.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Sargood: I wish to deal only with one point in the Bill. It is in connection with Clause 22, which deals with powers of entry. At least one hon. Member opposite has referred to those powers and urged that we should be sparing in their use. I do not share that view and I hope the Minister does not. Owing to the rapidity with which rats and mice multiply, one person who is careless about responsibility in this matter can easily neutralise all the efforts made in regard to adjoining premises. I urge the Minister to make it known that he shares the view that these powers should be used as widely as possible.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I welcome the Bill and I hope the Government will go forward in making it a very effective instrument in further safeguarding our food supplies. The only note of discord was struck by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who both seemed to object to the central Government having powers of administration over local authorities. They appeared to forget that obviously consultations must have been going on with local authorities and also that Clause 11 contains provision for a very substantial grant to local authorities.
I certainly would not leave this important matter of pest prevention to private enterprise, or to a combination of private enterprise and local authorities, as has been the case in the past. In 1940 I was concerned in running a factory and there we were troubled by rats. I engaged a rat catcher, who agreed that I should pay him sixpence for every tail he showed me. At the end of the day he showed me about 30 tails and I paid him the money. The following evening at the

"local" I met the manager of a neighbouring factory and discussed the question of rats with him and told him that I had paid a rat catcher sixpence per tail. He said, "I paid the same man for the heads." That is an illustration of private enterprise getting it both ways.
If, as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary informed us, the estimated annual loss in foodstuffs due to vermin is something upwards of 2 million tons it is a very serious and vital problem. I wonder how much of the rations of the people is concerned, how much cheese, bread, grain and other foodstuffs, which could go towards the feeding of the people of this country. Because of that loss, the problem is most urgent and vital. That was why, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was reviewing the provisions of the Bill, I interrupted him to ask him to say a word about Clause 29, which states that the Measure is not to become an effective Act until 31st March, 1950. His reply was most unsatisfactory. He said that the delay was caused by the fact that when the Bill became an Act regulations would have to be made and, also, not until it became an Act could the Government enter consultations with those concerned. That was a most weak and feeble answer and certainly not worthy of the Minister. I cannot see why consultations cannot be undertaken immediately and why regulations cannot be drawn up to hasten the Bill, so that it may become an effective Act, not in March, 1950, but in March, April, or May this year, thus saving a year's valuable foodstuffs which will otherwise be wasted by the depredation of these pests. I do not think an Amendment on the Committee stage is necessary. I believe the process is quite simple and that the Minister can delete that item relating to the Bill becoming an effective Act on 31st March, 1950, and allow it to take its course and become law as soon as it has passed through both Houses and received the Royal Assent. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this matter. Every grain of food which can be saved from these pests is something in the nature of a service to the country.
Clause 3 transfers major responsibility from the shoulders of the householder, the factory occupier or the occupant of other premises, to the local authority by virtue of the owner or occupier having to


notify the authority and leaving it to them to get rid of the pests. I am certain that the local authorities will co-operate. But one matter must be examined. It was made clear by the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) that we shall need a great many more pest officers, rat catchers, or rodent officers, as they are called, than we have at present. It will be necessary to train great numbers of men or women to be responsible for this form of destruction. It may be that the salaries of these officers are not sufficiently attractive to bring in the necessary recruits, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point.
In conclusion, if the Minister accepts my suggestion and enables this Bill to become law as soon as possible instead of waiting until 1950, then he ought now to undertake a campaign with local authorities all over the country to rid their areas of these pests. I am sure that the local authorities will follow his lead if he makes the proposals and provides an overall plan. There is no need to wait another year before coming to grips with the problem. The Minister's duty is clear. I repeat, he should tackle the matter now by making this Bill an Act of Parliament as soon as possible.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe that only one speaker has stressed the fact that this Bill deals with urban as well as with agricultural areas. That needs to be stressed, because in Scotland in the cities and towns the problems caused by rats are most serious. I remember that during the first year when I sat as a member of a local authority I had to visit houses which were rat-infested. I have a vivid memory of a man telling me that he had to keep awake at night in order to keep the rats away from his children. It is well known that the whole of Glasgow is rat-infested. Much greater activity is needed on the part of local authorities to deal with the problem. We must face the fact that in the county areas sufficient energy has not been shown in the past. In Scotland the problem of rat-infestation is delegated to the county council. When I was on the town council we had to engage the rat officer employed by the county council. In the county of Ayrshire at that time

there were roughly a quarter of a million people. The area covered the big towns of Ayr and Kilmarnock and about half a dozen smaller towns, yet the only person employed to deal with rats in the whole of that area was an ex-policeman who worked on a part-time basis at a salary of, I believe, £100 a year. It was impossible for him to take the necessary steps. As soon as he dealt with the trouble in one place and turned his activities in another direction the pests were reported to be back at the first place.
Under this Bill we shall have a coordinated effort both in the country and in the towns in order to rid ourselves of the rat and mouse menace. The Minister has asked for a co-ordinated effort, and I wish to make one constructive suggestion. We shall be short of labour for this activity, and I think we all agree that we should employ private enterprise. Hunting is supposed to be a part-time activity. Judging from my correspondence, I understand that there is some doubt in the minds of many people about whether there will be an attempt to limit hunting. I ask the Minister whether he could make a concerted effort to transfer some of the energy now devoted to fox hunting to rat and mouse hunting. According to the figures given by the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) the mouse and the rat are more dangerous and more of a nuisance than the fox.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate a Bill which is coming before us, I think, the day after tomorrow.

Mr. Hughes: I did not intend to anticipate that Bill at all. I intended to suggest, following what was said by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin), that the 6d. per tail which he gave for rats could be extended, and that a similar offer could be made to the local hunt so that all this energy now devoted to fox hunting could be devoted to mouse and rat hunting. I think that the ladies of the hunt would look after the mice and the gentlemen could deal with the rats.
The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) said that we needed a big, comprehensive Bill. I regret that in this Bill we seem to be attacking the very small fry. Great indignation has been expressed about rats and


mice. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth turned upon moles. Of course, moles are a pest in the country. I am prepared to support a comprehensive attack upon moles as well as upon mice and rats. But where are we to stop? There is a phrase in the Bill requiring the destruction of animals. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that this was a campaign against rats and mice and everything else. Without anticipating any discussion on a Bill which will come before the House in two days' time, I suggest that an opportunity might be given during the Committee stage to the Minister to explain in detail what exactly is covered by the word "animals." He might not be prepared to consider foxes, but he might be able to consider not only moles but, what in Scotland is a serious menace, deer. Because deer are so much bigger than mice and rats, it does not follow that they are not also a menace——

Mr. Speaker: This is skating on very thin ice. The hon. Gentleman is really referring to another Bill in anticipation of Friday's Debate. He must not do that.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry if I have taken too much licence. I was led away by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth. All I suggest is that the Minister should in the Committee stage make this a really comprehensive Bill so that we can take a co-ordinated effort against pests of every kind.

7.21 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: It is not very often that I agree as much as I have agreed tonight with the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye). It was somewhat amusing to hear him talk with such relish and enthusiasm about killing thousands of rats; and it almost savoured of a blood sport. I do not think I may go further along that line tonight, however.
I want to emphasise the great damage which moles are doing in this country at the present time, and I want to ask the Minister either to extend the scope of this Bill to include moles or, alternatively, to use more extensively the powers which I think he already possesses. I believe that very few people realise the amount of damage done by moles in this country.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): If the hon. Member will forgive me, I would remind him that we have all the powers we need in Section 98 (4) of the Agriculture Act, 1947, which includes moles, among other things.

Sir J. Barlow: I think I have said that the Minister already possesses extensive powers but that he is not using them. Apparently the Minister has certain powers to deal with rats and mice under the same Act, but he is not using them adequately, for he is transferring them to this Bill. I hope he will use his powers to deal with rats and mice under this Bill more effectively than he has used his powers in the past. It is because he has not used his powers efficiently in the past that I suggest that the problem of moles might be transferred to this Bill. If, however, the Minister says he has sufficient powers already, I urge him to use them more effectively than he is using them at present.
Not many people realise the amount of damage that is done by moles, especially on the new leys which the Minister is advocating should be used for greater production. It is not only a question of the amount of grass covered by the little mole hills but the very large number of mowing machine blades which are blunted. Machines frequently have to stop because of it; blades are often broken, and this means long delays, frequently in fine weather. Moreover, the mole does an immense amount of damage to root crops. I believe the damage done by moles is very much greater than most people suppose. It is useless for individual farmers to catch moles, because if they are not also caught on adjacent farms they simply come in daily and do an increasing amount of damage. I ask the Minister to treat the mole, although it is so seldom seen, as seriously as it deserves to be treated.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) made a great plea to the House that this Bill should be brought into operation earlier than is proposed. Will it make very much difference if it is brought into operation earlier? After this Debate I am not at all sure that it will. Although many well-deserved congratulations have been bestowed on the Parliamentary


Secretary, he has also received considerable criticism from all sides of the House of this little Measure. I think if this Bill were not passed, the effect on rats and mice would be the same as if it were passed.
The most startling figure which was given during the course of this Debate was that given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) who said that before the war, on his calculations, we were paying some £400 for exterminating rats, mice and weevil, whereas now we are spending £1,300,000. It strikes me that what is happening in this Measure is that which is happening in many other branches of legislation: we are taking away from the citizen the responsibility for looking after his own property and keeping down his rats and mice and we are paying highly-salaried officials to do the job. According to my calculations, before the introduction of this Bill the Minister of Agriculture had 724 officers looking after the problems of infestation control and rat destruction. May I, on the Minister's behalf, answer a query of the hon. Member for Stretford, who I gather has ambitions in this direction, probably after the next Election. The remuneration is undoubtedly good. If the hon. Member qualifies he will become a temporary assistant technical adviser on rat destruction and he will work up to a salary of £650 a year. If he gets better he will get the plum job of technical adviser on rat destruction and then he will get £865 a year. Of course, he might become the Director and get £1,700 a year.

Mr. Austin: Judging by the extensive knowledge of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) he is much more fitted for a position of that character than I.

Mr. Turton: That is quite true, but if the hon. Member is not so qualified he may become a photographer at £432. I want to ask the Minister whether there is any real need for a photographer of rat destruction. I should have thought that it would be far better if we returned to the old-fashioned system whereby the individual kept down his own rats and, if they were too many for him, employed an independent contractor to do it. I have no sympathy with the hon. Member for Stretford who was caught by the old

trick of merely going by the tails when somebody else had the heads. In my part of the country we used to employ these old catchers and they used to lay down for our inspection what rats they had caught in the night. Their results were quite amazing. I remember an old man called Rattie Joe, well known in the North of England, where anyone who travels considerably might have met him. He used to come on the farm, but one was not allowed to watch him at work. He went into the corn-rick and at the end of the operation he would show what he had caught. He has caught at night some 50 or 60 rats, not by poisoning them, but by attracting them. The secret of his art was that it was always done by manual work. He killed everything in a humane manner, with his hands, and employed nothing but that innate skill. That type of craft is dying out and I think it is a mistake that it should be allowed to disappear.
I believe the Bill is right in transferring the powers of rat destruction from the county councils to the district councils, because the district councils or the borough councils are the health authorities for the area and they should properly have this power. It is not right for hon. Members to argue, as the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) argued, that they have not the money to be efficient rodent destructors, because I have been trying to point out to the House that those who have the rats and mice on their premises should make a proper contribution to the cost of destruction.
I know the Minister will answer the query put by my hon. and gallant Friend as to how much of this £1,300,000 in his Vote for rat destruction comes back to him from the farmers and from those merchants on whose premises his pest officers have to go.

Mr. T. Williams: Perhaps it will answer the hon. Member if I tell him that I cannot give an answer about the figure he has mentioned since the £1,300,000 is not in relation to rats and mice but to crop pests.

Mr. Turton: It is quite true. No doubt, when the right hon. Gentleman replies, he will tell us the actual amount that he is disbursing. In talking about salaries I have confined myself to those of the people engaged in rat destruction. I agree


that there is some other minor expenditure that comes under other headings. However, we want to be satisfied that there is no undue overlapping in the whole of this service. The point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond has not been answered today, and I think the Minister must reply to it—about this dual system, with the district councils and their rodent officers on the one hand, and, on the other, the Ministry and its pest officers, who will be dealing with the problem on the fields and in the farm houses and other farm buildings. I should have thought it better if the Minister had handed the work of all his pest officers, in so far as it concerns the destruction of rats and mice, to the district councils, so that we had one service for the farm lands and buildings and for the non-agricultural hereditaments in the country, and the urban properties as well. I think myself that it is wasteful to have these two services. I make no reflection on the Minister's present pest officers, but the time has come to tighten up that service and hand it over to the local authorities.
Now I should like to turn to the other side of the problem, and that is the question of infestation. As I see it—I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—under the Bill local authorities have no power to deal with infestation of food by weevil. They have power to deal with infestation by other insects. I should have thought that in this Measure we would give them power to deal with infestation by weevil as well. The Minister has been asked how far he and the local authorities have power to inspect the infestation taking place on premises occupied by other Government Departments. I hope he will answer that question. This is a very real problem. I think that even the Minister's colleague must admit it. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the grain that had been in store seven months, half of which was declared to be infested with weevil. The Minister of Food told us about that, and he went on to say:
We realise that there are problems of storage of coarse grains, and that is precisely one of the reasons why we made the loan of maize to Eire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 816.]
That was the reason given in the House. If that was the real reason, and if the Minister was not capable of looking after

his grain, so that he gave a loan to Southern Ireland, then it would have been far better, if the grain was burdensome to him, if he had given it to the Minister of Agriculture for feedingstuffs.
This is a large problem. There are 54 aerodromes in this country holding 190,000 tons of grain. I should like the Minister to tell us what proportion of that grain that the Minister of Food holds is weevil infested. This is not only a matter for farmers; it is causing great concern to all the merchants also, and will give anxiety also to the Railway Executive who will have to handle this weevil infested grain later, because there will be a danger of contamination of sacks, railway wagons and store houses. This is a problem, I am afraid, that is arising because of the war damage done by the German air raids. Many of the places where grain used to be stored—the grain silos at the ports—have been destroyed, and the Government are having to use these aerodromes. I am not making any complaint about that, but I do ask that when the grain is taken to an aerodrome the Minister of Agriculture and the local authority should be satisfied that weevil infestation does not occur. I am told—and I should like it corrected if it is wrong—that this foreign grain is "topped," as they say in the trade; that is, one sack is placed on top of another sack; and those who are experts in the trade say that that causes very rapid spread of infestation.
I understand that the inspectors of the Ministry of Agriculture even now inspect that grain. Could the Minister tell us what the results of this inspection are, and how far any spread of infestation has been due to delay, or to lack of co-operation between the Ministers concerned? Would he also tell us whether he is satisfied that the local authorities have full power themselves to inspect, and that there is no hindrance put in their way by the Minister of Food or by other Government Departments? I think that, perhaps, other Departments may be concerned. I have spoken about grain and the Minister of Food, but it may be that there are other articles of food and other Government Departments concerned, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). There are points, quite clearly, that will have to be considered in Committee. I hope that the Minister will


consider very carefully the suggestions which have been made with the design of improving this Bill. We do not grudge him the money for the Bill because, I understand, he does not think it will cost more than he is spending at present. Some of us would like to see the large expenditure on pest destruction cut down, and I hope we shall be able to ensure that in Committee.

7.38 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I should like to express thanks to hon. Members in all parts of the House for the welcome they have given to this small Bill. I do not think there has been any opposition in principle to any one of the 29 Clauses. The various points raised are really Committee points, and very small ones at that. The hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) referred to Clause 3 (1) and the words "substantial numbers," wondering what they meant. The phrase "substantial numbers," according to my very modest education, means substantial numbers. To obtain a more detailed idea of what it means, one refers to Clause 27 and the interpretation of "infestation." That, I think, is the real answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to Clause 4 (1) and had a good deal of fun about the words "resort thereto." It must be obvious to every hon. Member and to some right hon. Members that rats do not necessarily eat where they live. They migrate, perhaps, from a whole series of buildings to a food store, do themselves well, and then migrate back again for their night's sleep. This subsection is, perhaps, worth looking at again, and I undertake to look at it between now and the Report stage. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked how Clause 4 (3) linked up with Clause 20. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was quite clear when he said that Clause 20 simply lifted the words "rats and mice" out of the 1947 Act and transferred them here, so that for enforcement purposes the local authorities have power. That, therefore, seems to me to be very clear.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman then asked about the finance of the Bill. On page iii of the Bill he will see:

It is not possible to estimate the additional cost of the expenditure likely to be incurred under these provisions, but grants which are at present being paid to local authorities in connection with the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919 (which is repealed by this Bill) are estimated to amount in respect of the year 1947–48 to £255,000"—
while there is an additional expenditure of £20,000 for research and that kind of thing. I am afraid it would be just a guess—and anybody's guess would be as good as anybody else's—to estimate what additional cost will be involved once this Measure becomes operative after March, 1950. The figure of £1,300,000 referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet relates to crop pests and not to rats and mice. That is the simple answer.

Sir T. Dugdale: What is the figure for rats and mice?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid I cannot give the figure out of the document from which the hon. and gallant Baronet quoted. All I know is that the figure of £1,300,000 referred to in the Estimates is for crop pests, and perhaps the figure I have given is just about as near as we can get to that part of our expenditure incurred exclusively on rats and mice.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to some 700 or 800 pest officers. Actually, of the headquarters staff, the scientific and executive staff number about 140, regional scientific inspectors 65, and assistant rodent officers and inspectors 100.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister correct his Vote, for that makes it quite clear that the infestation control division has 424 officers and the pest control division has 300 officers, apart from those to whom he pays wages.

Mr. Williams: I have just given the hon. Member the figures, which amount to 305 for rats and mice. I said also that the other figures referred to crop pests and not to rats and mice. I cannot be clearer than that. The hon. and gallant Baronet also asked whether we were getting value for money. I hope so. County executive committees have their trained pest officers. If farmers cannot undertake the destruction of pests themselves, they invite the services of the county executive committee who, under contract, do the job for the farmers. If they can go into a series of farms so that


there can be a real drive from one to another, and perhaps meet another drive coming in the opposite direction, that is the sort of activity which the county executive committee prefer, but they cannot always do it. Some farmers are willing to enter into contracts not only for doing the job for one or two days, and then forgetting it for the next 12 months, but for several visits throughout the year. The trouble is that while some farmers are willing to have the job done effectively, others hold out and make it impossible to have a clean sweep such as we would all like. I hope that the increased powers given under the terms of this Bill will enable that to be done.

Sir T. Dugdale: What sort of percentage do we get back? Does it come out roughly the same, county by county, or are some areas better than others?

Mr. Williams: It varies, obviously, because of the nature of the counties. For instance, Cumberland and Norfolk are totally different. However, the average recovery is about 61 per cent. of the total cost involved in these contracts for farmers. The hon. and gallant Baronet said that in 1938–39 the cost to the Government for pest destruction was only £400 odd. It may well have been, and I do not want to start blaming Governments of 1938 or 1939, but it may be that they were not quite as interested in food questions as we are in 1949. The sooner we can start to reduce the loss of 2 million tons of food annually destroyed by rats, mice and other pests, the better.
The hon. and gallant Baronet's suggestion relating to the activities of county executive committee pest officers and local authority officers operating together, is exactly what this Bill provides for, so that the county executive committee pest officers dealing with the agricultural land can co-operate with the local authority officers, and they can make a complete drive on the lines that he himself indicated. That also answers the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye).

Mr. Alpass: Does that mean that the county executive committees can carry out this work by agreement with the local authorities?

Mr. Williams: The county executive committees by arrangement with the local

authority—that is, the rural district council. They can make joint schemes if they feel so disposed.
Clause 14 (4) was referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet in relation to the possible destruction of infected food. He said that the magistrates' court, where an appeal could lie, would be too dilatory, and that arbitrators ought to be appointed to perform the task instead of the magistrates' court. I should have thought that the magistrates' court would be much quicker than arbitrators, and that was why, after consulting all the authorities, we provided for an appeal to the magistrates' court. In any case, they meet weekly and sometimes more than once a week, and I should have thought that would have been sufficiently expeditious.
The hon. and gallant Baronet also referred to weevil-infected barley which has been in store since May last, and asked what can be done with food belonging to the Ministry of Food, stored up and down the country. The Minister of Food has not got any food stored up and down the country; at least, he is not responsible for dealing with infestation. The Transfer of Functions (Infestation Control) Order, 1947, transferred the technical staff and the responsibility to the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, there are not two Government Departments dealing with this matter. It is now dealt with wholly and exclusively by officers of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Sir T. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the 75,000 tons of food to which I have referred?

Mr. Williams: We are dealing as effectively as we can with this matter, with the expert staff we have at our disposal, but I hope that the hon. and gallant Baronet and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will bear in mind that if we give to the farmers a guarantee of rations up to a certain period, say 12 months ahead, we have to make our purchases abroad and we have to receive them as fast as they can be shipped; we therefore have to store them for long periods to ensure that the rationing period of six months or 12 months, whatever it may be, is completely covered. It would be suicidal to invite farmers to keep pigs or poultry by the million if they found out at the


end of the time that there were no feedingstuffs available. Sometimes storage accommodation is not so good. The length of time for which these rations have to be stored is perhaps longer than we like, but in the circumstances I am afraid there is little or nothing that we can do to avoid it.

Sir T. Dugdale: I agree with all that the Minister has said, but out of 75,000 tons, 35,000 tons is weevil stricken. Surely, it is the height of folly not to use it while it is of some use in feeding animals to help our food production?

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. and gallant Baronet that I do not want to see any food lost that is capable of being used without adversely affecting the animals.
The hon. Member for Thornbury asked whether the new regime would be as economic as the old regime. I think it is bound to be more economic in the end when the county executive committees and the local authorities are operating together, both more or less under the same powers. I cannot think that it can be any less economic than the present system. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) referred to Clause 27, and wanted to know what was meant by land under water. He was good enough to tell the House that a lake is covered by water. I had noticed that before, but, may I say, so is the Atlantic. If we do not have in the Bill that interpretation, how shall we be able to catch the Loch Ness monster? The hon. and gallant Member referred to the pests other than rats and mice and insects—to weeds, moles, and so forth. I can assure him that we have the power to deal with all the things he referred to in Section 98 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and the corresponding Act for Scotland.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I expressly pointed out to the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland, when that particular Scottish Bill was before the House, that we were still not dealing with prevention at the source of pests, and they said that there were all kinds of Acts which would do that, but none of them has actually done it. That is the real point.

Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary are as anxious as anybody in this House to get rid of these various pests.
The hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk complained bitterly that, despite the number of rats he had killed, he had more rats on his farm than ever before. I hope with him that the sort of drive to which I have already referred can be made between the local authorities and the pest officers of the county executive committees. If that kind of thing is done on a wide scale, I imagine that the service will be worth paying for—not 61 per cent. but the whole 100 per cent. I have already said that the committee contracts have been based on a limited number of treatments per annum and this is all that has been possible in certain counties without a considerable increase in staff. The main trouble is that some farmers are willing to pay for the service and some will not, and we cannot, therefore, get a continuous drive.
The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) asked two questions, and in both cases the answer is in the affirmative. It is my intention to deal with a compensation Clause for displaced persons, if he will accept that term, in Committee, and it is also true that we have power over the Transport Commission where food transport is concerned.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) wanted to know just how things were going to work out, and he felt that the power was hardly there to do the big thing, but I am hoping that under the direction that the Minister will be able to give under the terms of this Bill there will be a measure of uniformity in action, and since now the owner as well as the occupier is brought into the scheme, all these schemes of clearance will not be held up as they were before the war.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) wanted to know why we were deferring the coming into operation of this Act until March, 1950. The Parliamentary Secretary gave the correct answer when he said that all local authorities who are going to be charged with this responsibility will have a good deal to do in preparing for the new powers that are


to be conferred upon them. Before any regulations are made, we shall have to consult all the various associations and trade interests, which will be a long and difficult job. The hon. Member nearly answered his own question when he said that he knew that we were hopelessly short of effective and efficient pest officers, and that they will have to be trained before they can do the job without wasting a lot of money. I agree with him, and so far as Government resources are available we are training for national service as well as for the local authorities as rapidly as we can, so that each authority in turn will have its own pest officers to do the job in their own particular districts.

Mr. Austin: I fully appreciate the reasons which my right hon. Friend has given, but does it not follow that in imposing the limitation of March, 1950, he precludes the country from having the advantage of the Act, if he is ready for it in December of this year for instance?

Mr. Williams: I do not think that we should do anything of value by operating the Act before we were actually ready for it. The safeguard, of course, is that the Defence of the Realm Regulation continues to operate until March, 1950, and therefore the work will not cease but will be continuous throughout, and at the same time I hope that we shall have trained more officers to do the job.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman intending to increase the present number of pest officers? At the moment they are rather decreasing.

Mr. Williams: It depends whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to pest officers employed by the State or by the local authorities.

Mr. Turton: I am referring to pest officers employed by the county committees.

Mr. Williams: That all depends on the amount of work which the county committees will be called upon to do. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton asked lots of questions about the grain store, and I think that I have already answered them.
The Bill is a small Bill, but I think that it will be a useful and very effective Bill in that it will bring these activities under

one umbrella, where the approach will be more or less uniform, and I am convinced that after 30 years' experience we shall be able to cash in on that experience and aim a deadly blow at those animals and microbes that destroy some 2 million tons of food each year in this country. I think that is well worth doing and I hope that hon. Members who have referred to the cost of pest officers will not be finicky about a few hundred pounds to destroy millions of rats and mice, when they are ready and willing to provide millions of pounds for other services which may not be quite so important. I should like to express my thanks to the House for the welcome it has given to the Bill.

Colonel Clarke: I think that the right hon. Gentleman overlooked a question asked from this side towards the end of the Debate as to whether overlapping might not be avoided if all the powers for destroying rats and mice were centred in the local authorities and not partly under the local authorities and partly under the county agricultural executive committees.

Mr. Williams: I think that the hon. and gallant Member must be confused because the whole of the power will be under one authority, namely, the local authority. It is only for convenience that where the local authority gives an order to a farmer, we invite the local authority to warn the county executive committee so that they can at once contact the farmer and undertake the work if they desire to do so.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY PESTS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to re-enact with modifications the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919, to make permanent provision for preventing loss of food by infestation and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise


the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required by the Minister (that is to say, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Secretary of State) for making to local authorities, subject to such conditions as the Minister may with the consent of the Treasury determine, grants equal to one half of the expenditure incurred by those authorities under Part I of the said Act, so far as not recovered thereunder;
(b) any expenses incurred under the said Act by the Minister—

(i) in respect of the exercise on behalf of a local authority of any functions of that authority under Part I of the said Act;
(ii) in respect of steps taken for securing compliance with any directions given by the Minister under Part II of the said Act;
(iii) in repaying to local authorities to whom functions of the Minister under the said Part II are delegated any expenses incurred by them in the performance of those functions;
(iv) in the payment of compensation in respect of damage to land occasioned in the exercise of any power of entry under the said Act;

(c) any increase in the Exchequer Equalisation Grant payable under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, attributable to any expenditure of a local authority under the said Act of the present Session;
(d) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Agriculture Act, 1947;
(e) any administration expenses of the Minister under the said Act of the present Session; and
(f) any expenses of the Minister in carrying out research in matters connected with the functions of the Minister and of local authorities under the said Act of the present Session;

and the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Minister under the said Act of the present Session."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: After the singular lack of information in the speeches of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary on this matter, I was hoping that we might have here the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain this Resolution to us. This involves the Minister of Agriculture being entrusted by the taxpayer with considerable sums of money, and I think we might have a rather fuller explanation than the one he gave us when he read out the explanation from page 3 of the Bill, which referred to the first part of this Money Resolution. I cannot

imagine any Tory Minister getting away with that. If the Secretary of State for War were on the Front Opposition Bench he would have kept us up all night; he would have made a frightful row, quite rightly, and said that we did not know our job. We are here faced with an important Money Resolution running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, but with no adequate information.
There are now two hon. Gentlemen to do the work of the Financial Secretary, and neither of them has the courtesy to be here tonight; nor has the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not for one minute suppose that the Minister of Agriculture has any more information than he had a few minutes ago. I should like to emphasise that we, as a Committee of the House of Commons, have not got the right people present to deal with a Money Resolution. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give a little more time to the House of Commons, to seeing how his duties are carried out there, and to seeing that Money Resolutions are properly explained to the country and to this Committee, he could save vast sums of money, and also enable us to know what is really being done, instead of leaving us dependent on the sort of information we have just received. I do not for one moment blame the Minister of Agriculture or his Parliamentary Secretary; I should never suspect them of knowing what it was all about. I just say that it is merely the usual incompetence of this grossly incompetent Government.

8.4 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The hon. Member, who was himself for long in the Chair, knows that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not expected to he here four nights every week. I am not at all sure whether I could add to the information I have already given. I have drawn attention to the financial provisions of the Bill. If the hon. Member has read the Bill, which I very much doubt, he must know that the expenditure can only be in the form of grants to local authorities as part of the costs incurred by them in carrying out their duties under this Bill. The 50 per cent. grant is, I think, the appropriate grant; but, as I told the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), I hope—


and I am sure the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) hopes so too—that these duties will be faithfully and fully carried out. It would be quite impossible for the best Chancellor of the Exchequer in the world to give anything like a reasonable estimate of what the increased cost may be. It would merely be a guess, and perhaps a very bad guess at that. All we can do, therefore, is to say that last year grants to local authorities were £255,000 plus £20,000 expended on research. We think that there will be some slight increase, but it would be quite impossible to say what that increase will be.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his partial explanation. I realise that his mind has wandered far from the days when on these occasions the Government were not allowed by the Opposition merely to say "You cannot estimate this." That same excuse could be made on almost every Estimate which has to be made in the course of the year. I know, of course, that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not expected to be here all night for four nights of the week. But it is now not all night: it is only eight o'clock in the evening. This is an important Money Resolution, and I can hardly conceive any time at which any Liberal or Socialist Opposition of the past would have allowed a Financial Secretary not to be here at this early hour to answer the questions which we ought to expect to be asked when the taxpayers of this country are finding the money. As to the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks, about hoping that these officers would carry out their jobs: we all hope they will do so; but the real fact is that it is much better to get natural means rather than to pay heavily by means of the Civil Service to have the job done.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 9th February].

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to agriculture, including certain enactments relating to milk and dairies, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the making out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of payments in respect of calves born during the period beginning with the 21st August, 1947, and ending with 1st October, 1949, or such later date not being later than 30th September, 1951, as may be specified under the said Act of the present Session;
(ii) of payments to persons maintaining centres which provide or have provided, during the period beginning with 1st October, 1947, and ending with 31st March, 1951, a service of artificial insemination for cattle from beef bulls of approved breeds;
(iii) of grants or loans to persons in respect of expenses incurred, during the period beginning with 21st August, 1947, and ending with 31st March, 1952, in the conservation of grass and forage crops;

(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Section eleven of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, to the Agricultural Marketing Fund and the Agricultural Marketing (Scotland) Fund;
(c) the repayment out of moneys so provided of a part, not exceeding three-quarters, of sums paid by a local authority by way of compensation to any person for damage or loss sustained by him by reason of any prohibitions or restrictions on the sale, supply or use of milk which is infected or suspected of being infected;
(d) the payment out of moneys so provided—

(i) of remuneration and allowances to the chairman of any tribunal constituted under the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944, for the hearing of objections to a refusal or cancellation of registration of a dairy farm or dairy farmer;
(ii) of expenses incurred by any Minister in providing or making arrangements for the provision by other persons of facilities for training in agricultural or horticultural occupations;
(iii) of any sums which apart from the said Act of the present Session would be authorised to be paid out of the Diseases of Animals Account;

(e) the payment into the Exchequer—

(i) of sums received by any Minister on giving up possession of land taken for


agricultural purposes by virtue of powers conferred by any Defence Regulation, being sums payable by the person to whom possession is or has been given up in respect of growing crops and other matters;
(ii) of sums received by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries representing the proceeds of disposal of stocks of tractors and machinery acquired by him under Section thirty-one of the Agricultural Development Act, 1939;
(iii) of any sums which apart from the said Act of the present Session would be authorised to be paid into the Diseases of Animals Account;
(iv) of any sums standing to the credit of the Cattle Fund."

8.10 p.m.

Brigadier Peto: I wish to ask a question in regard to the continuation of the calf subsidy. There is no doubt that the calf subsidy has been most successful as a temporary expedient, but in the next two years will there not be a tendency, as a result of the subsidy, for the numbers of yearlings and two-year-old store cattle considerably to increase? Will there not be a tendency, therefore, for the prices to decrease? In other words, unless some scale of increases for the finished article is provided for, the subsidy we are now about to continue will be offset by a corresponding fall in the price of beef.
My second question is this: The object of the calf subsidy and the artificial insemination free service, for which we are to devote certain moneys, is to increase the number of head of beef cattle. The artificial insemination service at less than 25s. is at present restricted to certain breeds. Will the Minister consider including Devons in the breeds for this free service?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member cannot now make a Second Reading speech but must confine himself to the Money Resolution.

Brigadier Peto: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Bowles. I was afraid that I should be getting out of Order. I will conclude by asking, if the object of these subsidies is to increase beef production, whether the Minister will not consider giving an increased price, either on a sliding scale——

The Deputy-Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. T. Williams: The first question is not quite relevant to this Motion, but I do not see why I should not answer it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that I do.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: This brings out the difficulty we are in with this Money Resolution, and I ask the Minister how we can best get over it. During the Second Reading of the Bill the Minister said that so far as the calf subsidy was concerned he was open to suggestions from all sides, and we should like to make some suggestions, which I imagine will vary according to the different areas, but I do not see how we shall be able to do so when when we come to the Committee stage if we have passed this Money Resolution.

The Deputy-Chairman: I gather that there is an overall amount for the subsidies, and I dare say Members will be able to press their claims for various proportions of the lump sum. It is impossible to make Second Reading speeches now on a subject that is outside this Money Resolution.

Mr. T. Williams: The existing scheme extends to September, when we shall be in a position to extend it further and to listen to any suggestions that are made.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH ARMY (SPECIAL RESERVES)

8.15 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I wish to call attention to the new registered Reserve about which the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War made statements on 23rd September last. If I trespass on the Minister's functions by stating the purpose of this Reserve, it will only be to make my argument clearer, and perhaps it will save the right hon. Gentleman's time when he replies. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is difficult for me to put my case unless I put his first. As I understand it, when the Government came to re-examine our Defence situation most closely last autumn, they felt there was a need to polish up the mobilisation plans for all three Services and instituted therefor a voluntary reserve for which they ask members of the Class Z Reserve to volunteer. The liability is that


these volunteers will be subject to recall in the event of an emergency earlier than the normal Class Z Reservists and those in the auxiliary Reserve. The Minister of Defence, in announcing this scheme, said:
During these immediate post-war years and before our plans for building up substantial trained Reserves have matured, we have at hand, should any extreme emergency be forced upon us, the trained and battle-proved men, and women too, who carried us to victory in 1945. These represent our present real Reserve since, as the House is aware, they are still liable to recall in the event of an emergency. Plans to this end have been prepared."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd September, 1948; Vol. 456, c. 1106.]
He went on to point out that a general recall of all these men will require time; that time will be taken in sorting them all out. He said that the task of allotting them to units could not be done overnight. The Secretary of State for War, later in the Debate, explained the situation as far as the Army was concerned. He said:
The intention is to invite men to register in particular areas where they are known to local commanders, and when they have done so to call them up if and when difficulties arise, particularly in relation to the Anti-Aircraft Command."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd September, 1948; Vol. 456, c. 1218.]
He pointed out that this would save a great deal of time.
It is clear from these statements that both Ministers attach great importance to this new scheme in the event of mobilisation becoming necessary. They did not, however, give us any details, although details were given at a Press conference on 30th September. We do not know what was said at the Press conference, other than what was printed in the Press—owing to the shortage of newsprint even the Press conferences of the Secretary of State are not fully reported. Actually, the reports of that Press conference were very meagre indeed. It can be said that since this announcement we have had no news as to how this admittedly important Reserve has progressed. The Minister of Defence referred again to the subject on 28th October when he said:
I have not been able to get any report as to the response we have had to that first appeal, but I hope that it will be very successful in enabling us to build up what is required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 375.]
In his few remarks on this subject in the course of his speech that day, he again

made it clear that he still attached importance to this registered Reserve.
I should like to find out from the right hon. Gentleman what is the present position. First, does he still attach the same importance to this Reserve? If so, will he give us some details of what the men and officers who come forward are expected to do? Of course, we do not expect him to give us the full details that would appear in pamphlets and area instructions. Is it to apply only to antiaircraft units, or is it possible that Reservists of this kind will be needed in the field force and in technical units? The need to save time, which is the Government's reason for establishing that Reserve, would apply throughout the Army to all types of units. If it is an essential part of a mobilisation plan that such men should be available, is it not also essential that they should be constantly kept in touch with the units to which they are allotted, and also given a chance of keeping in touch with changes in equipment?
In the anti-aircraft units, for which these men are particularly required, we are told that there are changes and improvements in equipment. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War told us so in the statement which he issued with this year's Estimates. If that is so, is it not important that these men should be given a chance to see this new equipment? I imagine they would not be allowed to see this new equipment and work it unless they were under orders on duty and subject to the Official Secrets Act at the time. I could put many more questions on this subject to the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not want to go into details. I only want him to tell us that the scheme has been worked out.
I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision which must have been taken by him before he answered the Question I put to him on 25th January, and which gave rise to this short Debate on the Adjournment. On that day I asked him how many officers and men previously on Class Z Reserve had registered in this Reserve created by him in September. He replied:
It would not be in the public interest to give these numbers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 720.]
I have heard the right hon. Gentleman make similar statements about other


things, and I have also heard his colleagues make similar statements, but I never expected that answer to the Question I put to him. I would remind him that he allows the Minister of Defence to tell us the exact strength of the Army from time to time, and the breakdown of that strength into Regulars, bounty men, and National Service men. So much for the Regular Army. He tells us in detail the numbers in the Territorial Army, and he tells us how many joined in the various commands and areas of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No, he does not.

Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman is on the wrong side of the House, and on the wrong Benches, too. He should go and help the Minister to reply. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to tell us those things about the active Army and about the active Reserves, why on earth cannot he give us similar details about what has become known in the Press as the "phantom paper army." I do not mind his having a phantom paper army if he has something else as well. What on earth is the secret about the number of men who come forward in response to an appeal by the right hon. Gentleman for volunteers for an early call-up in the event of an emergency? I rather feel that the right hon. Gentleman may reply, "I cannot give you these numbers, because they all belong to the anti-aircraft brigade and we have a rule in the Army that we never publish figures of what is called a particular category."

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell) indicated assent.

Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman nods his head. It was not very subtle anticipation on my part, because he gave a hint that that would be his reply when he answered a supplementary question that I put to him. Is not the right hon. Gentleman carrying the needs of security a little far? First, it is known that there ought to be an enormous number of men and women in the Anti-Aircraft Command. Then it is known that there ought to be a large number of Territorial volunteers, and there will be a large number of National Service men under the present scheme. What is the secret to be given away if the right hon. Gentle-

man lets us know whether a few thousand or even ten thousand men have volunteered to join this registered Reserve and therefore made themselves liable to early recall at some future date in the event of an emergency?
I very much fear from reports which I have had from private individuals who have written to me since I asked the Question that the reason the right hon. Gentleman does not give the figures to the House is that the scheme has not been a great success. The right hon. Gentleman may not like me saying that, because he may think it is contrary to the spirit of his appeal and will upset recruiting for this Service, but the House, having been told by the Minister that this is an important new Reserve, is entitled to know how recruiting for it is going, and it is for that reason that I have raised the subject tonight.
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to hide behind the screen of security. When I say that I have been told by people that very few have volunteered and that I have made what inquiries I could, I want to add that purposely I have not made inquiries of a particular anti-aircraft unit with which I have close connection, because I do not want to get involved in any official secrets. I am speaking entirely on the information given to me by people who have written in. I have not so far been able to meet anyone who has volunteered for this Reserve, nor have I so far met anybody who is in a unit to which any such volunteer has been allotted. From my own experience and from the information that is available to me, it would appear that the scheme has not met with complete success. If it has not met with complete success, I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to substitute in its place.
I quite agree with him and with the Minister of Defence that these special measures were necessary. There are gaps in our Defence position which it would be quite wrong to discuss tonight, but one of those gaps is obviously the shortage of men in the Territorial Army, which at the moment is largely due to the way in which the National Service system is going to work out, and that shortage will go on for at least two to three years. It was always hoped that some of this short-


age would be made good by volunteers from the Class Z Reserve.
I was glad to see at the beginning that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to experiment to see whether a volunteer force would be successful. It would seem that if it is not successful, he would be failing in his duty to the House and to the country to ensure the adequacy of our Reserves if he did not propose some complete re-registration of all men on the Class Z Reserve, so that at least he should be able to know whether men would be available to join up in the event of an emergency. The Minister ought to know, and he should be able to tell the House, whether the three million men who have left the Army since the War are available to rejoin at a moment's notice, a month's notice or six months' notice. If I am right in guessing that the voluntary scheme has been a failure, it is right to ask the right hon. Gentleman what other scheme he has to put in its place.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that the scheme has not had much time to work itself out and that it was difficult to give it publicity at the same time as we were giving publicity to Territorial Army recruiting. I see that one may slightly conflict with the other. Is it, then, his policy that more publicity should be given to this scheme now and that we should try it out for a further two, three, four or five months? What he should not be allowed to get away with is a statement to the effect that he is quite satisfied with the present situation but that he will not tell the House how recruiting is going, and that in due course he may actively reconsider the whole matter.
The right hon. Gentleman is not given as much as some of his colleagues to airy phrases about Defence matters, and I hope that he will be able to reassure us on this point. I ask him, in this context and others, to consider most carefully before telling the House, in answer to a Question or at other times, that it is not in the public interest to give information which no commonsense person could imagine is information about secrets. People, particularly suspicious-minded people—many people are suspicious of the right hon. Gentleman—must think that is really an excuse and a screen for something which has not worked very well.

8.33 p.m.

Brigadier Peto: We all wish this scheme to succeed—there can be no doubt about that in any part of the House—but as my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) has said, we are interested to know what other scheme the Minister will substitute if this one does not succeed. Before putting that question to the Minister, I would prefer to ask what he envisages doing with the present scheme in order to make it succeed. Is he prepared to give some inducement to encourage people to join, in order to become acquainted with modern weapons. If not, is he prepared to go on as we are now, or will he substitute some other scheme for it? The right thing would seem to be to continue with the present scheme and make it work.
Anyone who knows the Army at all knows that our main shortage will be in the Anti-Aircraft Command. There are many reasons for that, but it is principally due to the shortage in the numbers of trained Regular anti-aircraft units and the training establishments of anti-aircraft units. The numbers in the Regular Army are far too small to compete with the enormous number of people who have to be trained to take their place in the Territorial anti-aircraft units. That is the fundamental difficulty, and that makes it all the more important that a scheme like this for calling up men who have already been trained should be made to work.
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said about this not being a question of security or secrecy. Surely the House is entitled to be told why the scheme is not working, if it is not working. One of the reasons we are sent here as Members of Parliament is to find out about such schemes and to make such schemes work. We are not against the Minister on this, but are with him and want to help him. I hope that he will clarify this position when he replies.

8.36 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: When we are dealing with the matter of Reserves, it is inevitable and natural that because we have just fought a war and during that war trained millions of people, some people should think it will not be necessary to call anybody up for a long time to come. However, one feature has been overlooked which is of


singular importance in this Debate, and that is that since the War the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor have seen fit to alter the role of a great many units in the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. Those which were infantry battalions may now be Ack-Ack regiments, and there have been changes in other fields. It will obviously be extremely difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to tell any of these men who have been demobilised from one unit that there is a certain unit to which they will be recalled if the unit in which they formerly served has since changed its role. The ideal way to deal with the Reserve would be to let every man know that the regiment from which he was demobilised will be the one to which he will return. If that had been possible, the right hon. Gentleman would have found a greater response to his appeal than he has done.
We do not know what he has found. He has not told us. However, I hope he will tell us tonight. Judging by what he has said so far about the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, the results are not very satisfactory. In his latest White Paper he tells us about the shortage of Regular recruits and we know that the Territorial Army has reached only half way to its target, and we can therefore only conjecture whether his scheme for this special Reserve is working or not. We only hope that it does not mean that it is working so badly that no figures can be released.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants this scheme to work, he must tell the men to what sort of units they will go, where those units are likely to be stationed and where they will have to go at a moment's notice. Unless the right hon. Gentleman does that, the uncertainty which will inevitably arise in the minds of the men will prevent his scheme from being successful. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will concentrate on various areas concerned with Ack-Ack, but surely there will be other needs as well, and a distinction which must be made is whether the men are to go to Regular units or Territorial units. We understand that most of the Ack-Ack defences of the country will be in the
hands of the Territorials. Are these men to go back to the Territorial units or to Regular units? Can the right hon.

Gentleman give this information because it is important?
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman really has in mind as regards these Reserves. Is he trying to impress on other countries that we have a vast potential which is immediately ready, or is he trying to make up paper figures for the benefit of this House? At the moment we have not been given anything like the right figures. I would impress upon him that so far as Reserves are concerned, the important thing is not that they are actually called up but that there is that potential there, and that it is known to be there. I believe this country does not inspire confidence in the world by having a vast number of men under arms at any one time. What inspires confidence is that this country is ready at a moment's notice to produce a great number of men who are well trained.
The questions which the right hon. Gentleman must answer soon—if he does not answer it tonight, and I hope he will—is this: how long does he think these men in the Class Z Reserve can be considered reliable without further training for immediate call-up? How long does he consider any man who comes out of the Forces after war service is really fit to be called-up and to serve with an active regiment at a moment's notice? That is an important question because we have no idea what is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. My own feeling is that the maximum should be five years. I give him that as a figure which, if exceeded, is likely to endanger the efficiency of the Reserves unless he makes special arrangements for their refresher training.
It is of great concern to many people in industry today, and there is no industry which it seems to me is more concerned with this than the coal mining industry. During the war many of us were concerned that coal miners were called up into the Forces. That is past history and we need not dwell on that tonight, but it is most important that the right hon. Gentleman should make clear to the men in the Class Z Reserve which of them are in reserved occupations in the event of another emergency arising. As long as there is an uncertainty about what are the reserved occupations, there will be uncertainty in the minds of these men as to whether they should come forward or


not in answer to the call of the right hon. Gentleman. So I hope he will take this opportunity of making that clear to these men and help them to come to a decision.
I know the right hon. Gentleman must get the Regular Army first, for until he does that, nothing else will work. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to let our Reserves simply rot, and that is what is likely to happen unless the right hon. Gentleman makes up his mind as to how long they can be kept without refresher training, who are in reserved occupations in the event of an emergency, and to which units these men should go in the event of that emergency arising.

8.43 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I think there will be no doubt in the mind of anybody with military experience that one of the most important things of all is how soon Reserves can be called up in an emergency and, secondly, what will be the value of those Reserves when they are called up. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has put his finger on an important point, what will be the actual value of the Reservists whom the right hon. Gentleman hopes will be available to be called up.
Anybody who has had experience of Reservists and I speak as a Reservist myself—realises that changes of vigour, changes of health, and other things, materially affect the usefulness of Reservists. Therefore, from time to time during peace time it is of the utmost importance that those Reserves should be combed through to see who will be still available for really active work, who for less active work, and who have become of no use at all. At the beginning of the last war, we had to form a committee at the War Office to do this job. It was not formed as quickly as it should have been because it should have been done before the emergency arose. However, it proves exactly what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, what a large number of Reservists of other ranks, as well as officers, were not a great deal of good for the active job for which they were marked on paper, but who might be of some use for a less active job elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that I do not often agree with him, but I would say that in

this Class Z Reserve the Minister has a good plan here to produce at the right moment a considerable number of trained people to do a job which has to be done at once. Obviously Ack-Ack Command is the command which provides the biggest problem, because if Ack-Ack defences are not available before an emergency starts, one might just as well not hare them at all. That will be more so in the next war—which God grant may never come, but let us look to it in case it does. It will be more important than it was in the last war, and it was important enough then.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is there any real reason why we cannot have the figures as to the success or otherwise of this Class Z Reserve? Are we not here to be honest with ourselves, with each other and with the country? In any case, is it likely that any potential enemy—I will not mention names—does not know those figures? I am quite sure they do. Here in this House of Commons we are expected to be honest with each other, to say what is wrong or what is right. If the thing is going well, let us be pleased and tell the country; they are entitled to know, they pay. If it is going wrong, let us say so and say how we can put it right. Is there any real benefit to anybody, or does it prevent anybody outside from knowing, if we merely hide behind a statement that the public interest does not suggest that these figures should be given?
We on this side of the House want to know what the situation is, and I am perfectly sure hon. Members on the other side want to know as well. We are prepared to help in any way we can. In spite of all the abuse we have had from the right hon. Gentleman, we are still prepared to help him to build up the Army of this country, and that is something of which he should make use. He asks us by letter and by speeches at one moment to do this, and perhaps 24 hours later—I will not quote his famous phrases for they are well known—we are referred to in terms not altogether complimentary. It does not work, and unless we can get frankness from the Minister it will be harder and harder for us to tell the country and our constituents why we are trying to back him up because we do not know where we are, and neither does the country. I hope he will realise that we are perfectly sincere in this. We want


to help if we can, but if we do not know what we have to help, we cannot do it. I put it as bluntly as that.

8.49 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) has alleged that I occasionally indulge in abuse of my political opponents. I cannot recall anything more than a few mild observations about their policy and their political strategy. Beyond that I have never ventured. On the other hand, hon. and gallant Members opposite frequently castigate me for activities for which I am in no way responsible. For example, the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Low), who made the opening speech in this Debate, declared that hon. Members opposite were highly suspicious of the Secretary of State for War. That is a serious allegation, and my reply is that there is no reason why I should be suspect. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are."] Certainly I have nothing up my sleeve. At the same time I recognise that hon. and gallant Members opposite who display a very keen interest in the Army are entitled on any convenient occasion to raise questions such as that raised in this Debate. I make no complaint, except to say that if I ventured too far I should find myself in the throes of a discussion on the general Defence situation. I think we might defer consideration of such major issues until we have a Debate on Defence and the Service Estimates come before the Committee of the House.
The issue before us which emerges from the speech of the hon. Member for North Blackpool is a very simple one: first, whether we have achieved any success in what is described as the Registered Reservists Scheme; and second, if we have achieved success, what are the numbers of personnel we have succeeded in enlisting. On the other hand the hon. Gentleman asks us, if we have failed to achieve any substantial measure of success, to be good enough to disclose the actual numbers so that he may be made aware of our failure. That is the simple issue in this Debate.
No doubt hon. Members opposite would wish to know what the actual Reserve position is and I propose to acquaint them, broadly speaking, with the

situation, which will, I hope, clarify and explain the position. First, we have, as hon. Members have themselves indicated, what is known as the Class Z Reserve. This Reserve consists of all those officers and other ranks who served in the late war and are eligible to be called up until the end of the emergency. As we have not yet reached the end of the emergency they are liable, obviously, to be called up until the end of the emergency, whenever that may be. It is true that in the Class Z Reserve there must have been a great deal of wastage, arising from death, illness, infirmity and ineligibility because of other reasons. Over and above this, a number of those included in Class Z category would not be eligible because they have outlived their term of military service. In other words, they would not be of very much use to us if an emergency occurred either now or in the near future. All that is true and I accept that position.
Nevertheless, in spite of wastage, infirmity and ineligibility from a variety of causes, there still remains a substantial Reserve in the Class Z category. It must not be forgotten, either here or overseas, that in that particular category there are numbers of officers and other ranks highly skilled in the arts of war. It is a very important Reserve to have at hand. There is, however, this difficulty about the Class Z Reserve. Whether the officers and other ranks in that particular category were associated during their service with the infantry, the gunners, a technical arm like R.E.M.E., the Ordnance or any other corps, they nevertheless, if called up, could not be made available for active service except after some delay. The machinery is all in train and the mechanism is there, but there are various physical difficulties, which must be familiar to hon. Members with Service experience, which would prevent the call-up of those men and their availability in a short space of time.
Obviously, some of those in Class Z Reserve were associated during the war with A.A. Command. What I have said of the other categories applies also to them. We are, of course, very much concerned about the efficiency of A.A. Command. It is obvious that if we were faced with an emergency or an attack upon this country, efficiency and capacity for speedy action on the part of A.A. Command would be indispensable. Because we wish to have a reservoir of men


who were associated with A.A. Command during the war and could be made available at somewhat shorter notice than the generality of men in Class Z Reserve, although they themselves belong to Class Z Reserve, it was decided by my military advisers some months ago that we should adopt what they then called the "Village Green Scheme." They meant by that a scheme associated with local conditions, with men who were known to the commanding officer of the particular A.A. unit in the area. We decided, however, to call it, not the Village Green Scheme but the Registered Reservists Scheme.
I will make a confession to the House. We have not achieved a substantial measure of success with that scheme, certainly so far as numbers are concerned, but there are good reasons for that. The scheme was in active competition with the Territorial Army Campaign. Indeed, to some extent we decided to embark upon that scheme because we knew there were men who were not altogether willing to join the Territorial Army because that meant some measure of active service—drills, annual camp and training periods and the like—but who would be willing to place their services at the disposal of A.A. units and make themselves available, in the event of an emergency, to be called upon. That was the reason for the scheme, but as I have said it was in active competition with the Territorial Army campaign. Nevertheless, the scheme is there and in itself is a good scheme, even if we have achieved no substantial measure of success in attracting large numbers of men.
It may well be that we shall decide to adopt a similar scheme—and this will be an answer to the query of the hon. Member for North Blackpool—in relation to other units as occasion requires. But very much depends upon the success we achieve in connection with the Territorial Army campaign. On the extent to which we succeed in attracting a large number of recruits for the Territorial Army, many of whom will be attached to A.A. Command, will depend whether it will be less necessary to rely on this scheme. Over and above that, when the men called up for National Service begin to undertake their Territorial Reserve liability, many of them in A.A. Command, the scheme will be of no value at all. But that is some way ahead.

Mr. Low: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to say how many have come into the scheme already, is he prepared to say how many he wants per anti-aircraft unit, so that we may help him to get them?

Mr. Shinwell: I was coming to the matter of figures in a moment, and at the same time I will deal with the hon. Member's further question. Perhaps I may deal with his question on figures now. We are asked why it is that the figures are not made available. Why this secrecy? This is not unusual. It is true that we do disclose the figures of certain parts of the Service. For example, we may disclose the figures of one particular branch, but we do not disclose in that particular framework the numbers in particular units. Just as we decline to disclose the number we have available in A.A. Command, we equally decline to disclose the numbers that have already been made available to us in the Registered Reservists Scheme, and it would be most inadvisable to do so. It never has been done before. Incidentally, may I point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth that it seems to me that he should have been the last to talk about refresher courses for Reservists. I believe he was a Guards officer and no doubt a very——

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Far higher than the Guards—the Black Watch.

Mr. Shinwell: I apologise, and I am delighted to hear it. A very close relative of mine was also an officer in the Black Watch and very proud of his kilt, which I am quite sure he wore with as much abandon as, and perhaps with greater poise than, the hon. and gallant Member. I am now advised that it was the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) who raised the question of refresher courses. I will not accuse him of having been associated with the Black Watch. Surely Regular officers would be the first to admit that men called up—Regulars in the Army who have entered into a contract of service of some years with the Colours and a certain number of years with the Reserve—were never called up for refresher courses. Why I should now be asked by Regular officers, of all hon. and gallant Members, to call up Reservists for refresher courses, I really cannot understand.

Major Legge-Bourke: Major Legge-Bourke rose——

Mr. Shinwell: Wait a moment. Therefore, I must say to hon. and gallant Members that, although I can understand their anxiety for further information, I must resist the appeal, but at the same time assure them that, on the whole, things are going very well. In order to fortify that contention, I will give them further information without impairing the secrecy which I believe to be essential.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman clearly distinguish between what I said and what he said I said. What I did ask was the period after which he thought it necessary for re-fresher courses to be given to Reservists in order to make them fit for immediate call-up. I was not suggesting he should give them these refresher courses now, but I was asking the period after which he suggested they could be called up immediately without further training.

Mr. Shinwell: I thought I gave some information on that point at the beginning of my observations. I pointed out that Class Z Reserve has a certain wastage and that later on, when the wastage becomes more obvious and the men are no longer eligible or available, we shall have to rely not only upon the Regular Army but upon the National Service men and, in particular, the Territorial Army, which will derive from the National Service men.
I promised to say a word or two about the general Reserve position, without disclosing any matters which are regarded as secret. We not only can rely on Class Z Reserve, but we have the Regular Army Reserve. We have various categories of the Regular Army Reserve. I must be careful how I put this. It may well he that before very long we shall decide to devise another scheme which will assist in promoting greater reliability on the Reserve position than now exists, although the position is not quite so bad as some people imagine. We may improve it in a certain fashion, but I prefer not to enter into details at this stage. What I have said does indicate that we gave a great deal of attention to the matter of Reserves. In addition to what I have said, there is the Supplementary Reserve, which consists of technical people, transport people and the like. It

must not be forgotten that we have the Territorial Army. A great deal of nonsense has been talked about the Territorial Army campaign. After all, they are the real reserves and we have got a fairly large number of the very highest quality—let there be no mistake about that, one might almost say picked men—and we hope to add to the numbers, we shall add to the numbers, in due course. That is a very fine Reserve to have available.
I do not propose to go beyond what I have said. I should like to give hon. and gallant Members all the information for which they ask but it is clearly impossible to do so in the present situation. All that I can say to them is that this Registered Reservists Scheme has been devised for a specific purpose, which I have already indicated. Further, while it has not achieved the measure of success that we would like, nevertheless, the scheme is in being and we hope to achieve further success in the future when it no longer enters into opposition with the Territorial Army campaign. As regards the general Reserve position, while we take note of the wastage and of the difficulties that arise from the passing of the years since the end of the war to the end of the existing emergency, when the Class Z Reserve will no longer be available, yet we have a reservoir that can be tapped in the event of an emergency, and which will be called upon should occasion require.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. McCorquodale: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) for having raised this important matter, and for having been the means of our having had a speech from the Minister which, while it did not go very far, did tell us something. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was possibly a little churlish in suggesting or hinting that the desire of my hon. and gallant Friends for detailed information with regard to the Special Reserve was in order that we could blame him if the situation was un satisfactory. That is not so. We are equally as anxious as we know the right hon. Gentleman is to make all these schemes a success. If the present scheme is unsatisfactory all that we desire to do is to be able to help, by making suggestions or in any other way we can to


turn what is at present unsatisfactory into something more successful.
What we are anxious about, and I do not think that anxiety has been lessened by the Minister in this Debate, is the organisation of our Reserves. We must not assume that in a future war we shall have a six months' "phoney business" as we had in the late war. As the Secretary of State said, our trained Reserves are invaluable, but only if the authorities concerned know who they are, where they are, what they are doing, what their conditions are, whether they are working in a reserved civilian occupation and therefore not available for immediate call-up; and also if the authorities have a plan worked out for the quick and orderly calling up and posting of these Reserves in the event of an emergency. That is what I mean by the organisation of Reserves, not their numbers, but their swift and complete utilisation in the event of an emergency. So far as we can see it would appear that matters are still in the tentative stage. That is the cause of our anxiety. We desire to hear as soon as possible that the Minister, or rather his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, as I think it is more his responsibility, has a complete scheme worked out so that our invaluable trained Reserves are available to the country at the shortest possible notice.
The completion of this organisation is to us of the greatest importance, and the more information which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Minister of Defence can give to the House from time to time as to their plans and their progress, the more Members on all sides of the House can, I believe, help them in their difficult and important task. Believe me, we are all anxious to help to bring the Armed Forces—Regulars, Territorials, National Service and the Reserves —to a point of satisfactory readiness which we believe is a most important element in the maintenance of peace. We shall shortly have a defence Debate, and this wider question can no doubt be discussed again. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we consider these questions not in any spirit of blaming this man or that but with the desire to help to make the best possible use of the resources which are available to us.

Orders of the Day — COURTS MARTIAL PROCEDURE

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Swingler: I am glad of the opportunity to raise tonight another question which concerns the Service man. I refer to the question of justice and its administration in the Armed Forces. I am glad that the Minister of Defence has been able to come along tonight to reply to this Debate, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I sincerely regret that this matter has had to be raised at such short notice, but I must cast the responsibility for that upon the Minister because of what I regard as his highly unsatisfactory reply to a Question which I put down today on the action to be taken as a result of the recommendations of the Lewis Committee on the system of courts martial in the Army and Air Force.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the gist of the reply given in answer to my Question today on that subject, and to the situation which has thereby been created. The Minister said:
Among the major recommendations of the Committee—
that is the Lewis Committee—
still outstanding are the creation of a courts martial appeal court, the reconstitution of courts martial with civilian Judge Presidents, and unanimity of findings. The adoption of these three recommendations would entail a fundamental change in the basis of the administration of justice in the Fighting Services. Owing to the wide differences between the circumstances of life and service in the Navy and in the other two Services, it was considered advisable to confine the remit of the Lewis Committee to the latter. It is, however, clear that the same principles should so far as practicable apply to the three Services. It has, therefore, been decided to set up a committee under Mr. Justice Pilcher, of similar composition to the Lewis Committee and of equal authority, to examine the naval courts martial system. It is hoped to receive the report of this committee without undue delay. A decision as to legislation on these major points will, therefore, be withheld until this report is available.
I complain bitterly tonight of the further delay which is now caused in the reform of the administration of justice in the Armed Forces when the reason is given that because the Navy was not brought under review by the Committee set up in 1946, another committee must now be set up. There must be a further period of delay while they go through the rigmarole of inquiring into Naval courts martial and, in the meantime, the


major recommendations of the Lewis Committee are left suspended in midair. I wish to point out that these problems and grievances about the administration of justice in the Armed Forces have existed for some time. Before the war there was a committee called the Oliver Committee which is frequently referred to in the Lewis Report. The Oliver Committee made certain recommendations as a result of an inquiry into the courts martial system in the regular Army and Air Force. Their report was dated 1938.
The major recommendations of the Oliver Report were not carried into effect because of the outbreak of war in 1939. That report has stood over since then and in 1946, as a result of further pressure, the Lewis Committee were set up. That Committee sat from November, 1946, until April, 1948. Their report was dated April, 1948. I wish to pay a tribute to the work done by the Committee. Anyone who has read that report must agree that they went very thoroughly into the previous reports about the system of courts martial in the Army and Air Force—those of the Darling Committee of 1919 and the Oliver Committee of 1938. They had 37 meetings, they heard and examined 57 witnesses and they received over 200 memoranda about the administration of justice in the Armed Forces.
An important principle was laid down in the Report of the Lewis Committee about the difference between the consideration of the system of justice in the Armed Forces since the end of the war with the systems which had to be considered by the previous Committees. On page 30 the Report says:
Circumstances have changed since the Darling and Oliver Committees reported. Service under the National Service Act in peacetime, the effect of which they did not have to consider, emphasises the importance of the principle which we think no one would dispute, namely, that in the matter of legal safeguards, citizens should be no worse off when they are in the Forces than in civil life unless considerations of discipline or other circumstances make such a disadvantage inevitable.
The point was made that, after all, people went into the voluntary Forces of their own free will and in joining up they accepted any imperfections there were in the systems of those Forces, but now there was a different situation in which

men were compelled to go into the Army and the Air Force and it was surely important, in the question of legal safeguards, that as citizens they should find themselves no worse off in the Forces than they were in civil life, unless there were major considerations of discipline or other things in the Armed Forces which outweighed that consideration.
There are two other points I want to emphasise. The first is that when we are considering the point made by the Minister of Defence in relation to the Navy we should bear in mind that the bulk of the Service men are in the Army and the Air Force. Of the citizens who are involved numerically the vast majority of them are in the Army and the Air Force and the systems of those Forces were considered by this Committee. The second point is that the vast majority of the National Service men who are compelled to go into the Armed Forces go into the Army and the Air Force. Thirdly, both those Services are straining today to get recruits and one of the points which has to be considered in regard to this Report, as in regard to all reforms of administration in the Armed Forces, is its relation to the attractiveness of the Service in obtaining recruits. That is a point we are constantly considering in relation to the Armed Forces.
I want to consider three major recommendations of the Lewis Committee, to which the Minister of Defence referred in his reply this afternoon and which have now been put on the shelf, put into the pigeon hole, pending a new Report from a new Committee on the Navy. First of all, there is the important point of the right of appeal, the right of appeal of a Service man convicted by a court martial. What does the Lewis Committee have to say on that point? In paragraph 143 of the Report of the Lewis Committee unanimously say this:
We have come to the clear conclusion that a right of appeal on a question of law ought to be granted against conviction by court martial whenever the accused has pleaded 'Not guilty'; and that such right of appeal should, in cases of conviction after some date to be announced, take the place of the present system of review of the proceedings by the Judge Advocate General.
I want to know, does the Minister of Defence, do the Government, accepts that recommendation or not? If the Minister accepts that important recommendation that there should be estab-


lished a right of appeal against conviction by court martial, what is the reason for any further delay in carrying it into effect in the Army and the Air Force? If the Government do not accept this recommendation, made unanimously by the Lewis Committee, what are the reasons why they reject this unanimous, clear conclusion of this very distinguished Committee?
It seems to me that there is no question of bringing the Navy into consideration at all. We should have a clear answer whether the Government accept that recommendation or whether they reject it, and, if they reject it, what are the reasons? The second important question, and the second important recommendation which is to be shelved, is the appointment of civilian judge presidents of courts martial. That is referred to in a number of paragraphs on page 42 of the Lewis Committee's report, and I will give one or two brief extracts. In paragraph 194 the Committee say:
Today there is a tendency, which is certain to increase, for the prosecution and the defence to be conducted by legally qualified persons, resulting in disputes on law and procedure upon which it is unfair to ask a lay court to adjudicate.
Later on they say in regard to this recommendation that there should be civilian, legally qualified judge presidents in courts martial. They say, in paragraph 196:
These changes"—
that is, the carrying out of the recommendations—
will go far towards relieving the ordinary officer of responsibility for deciding disputed questions of law, for which he seldom has the necessary knowledge and experience, and at the same time render the existing procedure of confirmation and automatic review of conviction with all its demands upon time and labour unnecessary.
I have had a little experience of courts martial, not in the dock, but through having acted as defending counsel, and I can vouch from personal experience in the Army for the importance of that recommendation—that there should be legally qualified persons as presidents of the courts, particularly where there are legally qualified persons conducting prosecution and defence. Does the Minister of Defence and do the Government accept that recommendation or not? If they accept that recommendation now, what is the reason for any further delay in the Army and Air Force in carrying it into effect? If that recommendation is right, why should it not

be immediately carried into effect, without prejudice to what may be done in any other respect—in the Navy, for instance? If the Government do not accept that recommendation I think we are entitled to know the reason why the Minister of Defence will not accept that unanimous recommendation of the Lewis Committee that there should be civilian judge presidents of courts martial.
The third point is the recommendation of the Lewis Committee about the unanimity of the findings at a court martial. That is referred to on page 27 of the Report. In paragraph 123 the Committee unanimously say:
We have heard no convincing argument as to why the salutary rule that the verdicts of juries must be unanimous should not be applied in the case of courts martial. We do not consider, once this necessity is realised, that any greater difficulty should be experienced in securing unanimity in courts martial than in the civil courts.
That again is a clear and categorical recommendation by the Lewis Committee that immediately could be carried into effect, by laying down that there must be, as in civil courts, unanimous verdicts by the members of the courts martial. Again I ask, Does the Minister of Defence accept this recommendation or not? Surely, we are entitled to know? We are entitled to know whether these major recommendations have been accepted by the Government, apart from the question of when they are to be implemented. We should know whether they are accepted, or whether they have been rejected for some reasons the Government have in mind.
We are to have further delay. Already, in fact, we have had 10 years' delay, since the Report of the Select Committee in 1938, though it would seem that the whole situation has changed as the result of the introduction of National Service, and particularly of National Service in peace time. We have had a delay of virtually over 10 years in reform of the administration of justice in the Army and Air Force. It is a noteworthy point that in the past, as in the case of the Lewis Committee in 1946, these committees have been set up to inquire into the Army and into the Air Force together, but not into the Navy as well. The Lewis Committee was set up specifically to inquire into the court martial system of the Army and Air Force. If the question of naval courts martial was to be introduced, why


in 1946 was the committee not set up to inquire into courts martial in all three Services? If now nothing can be done unless it is done in all three Services at the same time, then that must have been obvious and equally true in 1946.
In the case of the Oliver Committee before the war and the Lewis Committee in 1946 that point was never raised. The Army and the Air Force were brought under review, and the Committee were asked to inquire into the systems there and to make recommendations. Any person of any common sense would suppose that immediately the recommendations had been made they would be accepted or rejected, and if accepted would be implemented. I can think of no argument—and certainly there was no argument whatever produced by the Minister of Defence this afternoon in reply to questions—to show why, because there has not been a committee inquiring into the Navy and making recommendations on the Navy, further injustices, which is virtually what they are, or further maladministration are to go in the Army and the Air Force because the Navy was not brought in and there was no co-ordination previously to bring in the Navy.
If the Government accept the recommendations of the Lewis Committee, the postponement of the implementation means that there is going to be further maladministration of justice in the Army and the Air Force in order that the Navy should have recommendations at the same time. That seems to me an extraordinary situation, and I think that I am not exaggerating when I say that the answers given by the Minister of Defence to those questions this afternoon astonished Members of the House, certainly those Members who had read the Lewis Report and followed up this matter of inquiries into courts martial procedure previously. It seems to me—although this is purely a matter of speculation—that there are some people who have said that there must not be any reforms carried out in the Army and the Air Force unless they are simultaneously carried out in the Navy because the Army and the Air Force must never get a little bit ahead of the Navy in administration; or, put in another way, that the Admiralty is dictating to the other two Services if and when any reforms in their

systems of administration are to be permitted to be carried out. Otherwise, I can think of no explanation of this situation.
Here we have one more committee set up to inquire into courts martial, another period of delay, and we do not even know now whether within the lifetime of this Parliament these reforms will be carried out. We may be faced with the situation of having another committee set up and a further lot of recommendations, and so we may go on from year to year. I would like to bring the House back to the original point which I made and the quotation which I gave from the report of the Lewis Committee. This is a vitally important question which takes on an entirely new aspect when the State is conscripting men to go into the Armed Forces, and they are entitled to ask why they do not get the same rights and the same treatment in the Armed Forces as they would get as citizens outside on these unanimous recommendations of the Lewis Committee, on the question of unanimity of findings, the appointment of civil judge presidents and the other recommendations that have been made. The men in the Army and the Air Force are entitled to ask the Minister of Defence for these long overdue reforms to be immediately implemented, and if they are not to be the Government should provide good and sufficient reasons for rejecting them.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: This Debate is on the subject of the reform of courts martial procedure in the Forces. I have had very little to do with the Armed Forces, but I have spent a lifetime connected with the Civil Service, and the similarity between the Debate we are having now and the kind of answer I used to get from His Majesty's Treasury over and over again is too remarkable to be incidental. It was my experience that whenever I wanted to get anything done in one grade of the Civil Service, the Treasury would explain that that could not possibly be done until dome other grade had been dealt with; but when the organisation representing the other grade went along the Treasury explained, equally convincingly, that nothing could be done with them until my grade had been dealt with. The net result was that nothing got done for very long periods of time.
I hold one or two very strong views about this, which I want to put very directly to the Minister of Defence. If we go back to the day when the Lewis Committee was appointed in 1946, the Admiralty must have held that there was something in the conditions of naval Service which so differentiated the requirements of justice in the naval Service from the requirements of justice in the Army and Air Force as to make it desirable to exclude the Navy from the scope of the Lewis Committee's investigation. If they did not hold that view they had no right to exclude the Navy from the Lewis Committee's investigation.
If they did hold that view, then they must now abide by the logic of the view they then held, because if it be the case that conditions in the Navy are so different from what they are in the Army and the Air Force as to make it desirable to keep the Navy outside the scope of the Lewis Committee, then by no logic or reason whatever can it be urged that the application of the findings of the Lewis Committee to the Army and the Air Force should be withheld or delayed because of some hypothetical contingent possible effect upon the Navy as distinct from the other two Services.
If we allow this to go by, I see very clearly what will happen later on. When we get the report of the new committee on the Navy, the other two Service Ministers will discover—because there is a magnificent lack of co-ordination between the three of them: a lack of coordination that mounts almost to the level of genius—that there is something in the report of the committee on the Navy which requires further investigation by another committee on the Army and the Air Force before the recommendations can be applied. And I can see this going on merrily for years and years and years. In fact, I see no reason why it should end.
I beg the Minister of Defence to realise that there is strong feeling in the House on this subject of avoiding by all possible means the unwitting infliction of injustice within the Armed Forces. The more true it is that the Navy, the Army and the Air Force are disciplined Services as distinct from ordinary civilian employment, the more intense and thorough we should be in ensuring that the men in those Services

not only get justice, but also have every appearance of securing justice.
Now, that is the problem with which the Lewis Committee dealt when producing its recommendations, and I can see nothing whatever in the position of the Admiralty which justifies them, two years after the appointment of a committee from which they themselves excluded the naval service in the first instance, now using the naval service as a reason why nothing should be done, or saying that whatever is done should be delayed in respect of the other two military Services of the Crown. I do beg my old friend the Minister of Defence not to take over into the Defence area of the administration of this country the sordid, indefensible, time-wasting, delaying, irritating, annoying injustice of His Majesty's Treasury, which I have spent most of my life trying to fight.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Paget: There is one question to which we should get an answer now. Is it or is it not the fact that the Army and Air Force court martial can be reformed without the naval court martial being reformed? If the answer to that question is "No," then what on earth was the point of setting up a committee from which the Navy was excluded, because ex hypothesi nothing can be done with its report. If, on the other hand, the answer is "Yes" and the Army and Air Force can be reformed without reforming the Navy, then why in the world not do it now when we have the report? That seems to me to be a question which should he answered. Or is it just another occasion of the sheer inertia with which the Forces resist any sort of change that has been too much for a not very strong Minister?

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The House is very fortunate to have this opportunity to express its view so soon after the statement of the Minister of Defence, and we are indebted to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) for the way in which he has expressed the deep concern that is felt and the great disappointment at the announcement of my right hon. Friend. The Lewis Committee was appointed because of the profound disquiet that existed throughout the country about conditions in courts martial in the Army and Royal Air Force, and we now have the report of the Com-


mittee, which included four very distinguished Members of this House, that sat for 18 months and took a great deal of evidence. It is a report containing some very important recommendations, and I agree that the House is entitled to know the decision of His Majesty's Government with regard to these recommendations.
I appreciate that the recommendations are of such a far-reaching character that it is not unnatural that the Government should want to consider whether they should be applied to the Navy as well as to the Army and the Royal Air Force. I can well understand that there may be conditions in the Navy which do not make all the recommendations of the Committee appropriate as they stand. For example, it may be more difficult to get a civilian president for a naval court martial than to get a civilian president for a military court martial.
I urge the Minister of Defence to announce the views of the Government on these recommendations in so far as they apply to the Army and the Royal Air Force. I think it is reasonable that there should be another committee to consider whether they should be applied to the Navy, and I imagine that the Pilcher Committee will report whether or not these recommendations should be applied to the Navy. I imagine that if they are to be applied to the Navy the necessary steps will be taken so that there may be a co-ordinated system, and that if necessary there will be a common Bill to deal with the three Services. If there are reasons why these recommendations should not be made applicable to the Navy, I hope the Government will proceed to implement the recommendations of the Lewis Committee with regard to the Army and the Royal Air Force.
I suggest that at the very least the House is entitled to know what are the views of the Government on these recommendations in so far as they affect the Army and the Royal Air Force. I also ask why it is necessary, as the Minister of Defence announced after Questions today, that the terms of reference for the Pilcher Committee should be identical with those of the remit to the Lewis Committee. I should have thought it would be better that the new committee, in the light of the overhaul of court martial conditions in the Army and

Royal Air Force, should be asked to consider how far similar reforms can be introduced in the Navy. I ask the Minister of Defence to confirm the assurance, which I understood him to give in answer to a supplementary question I put this afternoon, that he will see that this committee gets to work and reports expeditiously, and that it will not be used as a mere time-wasting expedient but is appointed on the definite understanding that it reports within a definite and limited period of time.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I want to add one small point by way of support of the protest that has been made by my hon. Friends and others who have spoken, because this is a point which casts peculiar light on the further delay which is proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), who raised this matter, referred to the injustice which is done to hundreds of airmen by the continued delay, but there is also serious injustice done in the Navy. When this Committee was appointed, those who were concerned in the matter raised the question in the House, and asked the Admiralty why they had not appointed a committee at the same time to go into these matters and why discussion and examination was not taking place. We were told by the Admiralty at that time that they were going to take account of the findings of the Lewis Committee, and therefore it could be assumed that there would be some examination going on inside the Admiralty at the same time and that they would be prepared to act when the moment arrived for the Lewis Committee to report.
I raised the matter again on the Naval Estimates in 1946, but I did not get any explicit answer then. However, the assumption was that the Navy was going to take into account the general views expressed by this Committee, and certainly there was no indication given to us at that time that there was to be any special procedure such as that proposed now, namely, that there should be a subsequent inquiry made on behalf of the Navy, further lengthening the whole procedure. I hope the Minister of Defence will realise the widespread feeling that exists on all sides of the House on this question, and that he will decide to change his mind and go ahead in the


manner suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Donovan: I speak with some diffidence on this subject, firstly, because I did not know that this Debate was going to occur, and, therefore, anything I say is certain to be rather disjointed and disconnected; and secondly, because I have always felt it is difficult for someone, who has served on a committee which makes recommendations, to acquiesce in a decision to shelve the committee's recommendations. Again, for causes which I could not help, I was not here when the Minister of Defence made his announcement today.
I should be particularly sorry if the recommendations to set up the court martial appeal court were to be deferred until the new Committee reports. What is to happen supposing that the new Committee decides that for the Navy there should be no appeal court? So far as the Army and Navy are concerned—I am relying upon my recollection of the evidence that was given before the Lewis Committee—Service opinion was practically unanimous in the view that some appeal court should be constituted. In fact, there is a species of appeal court now. All the papers go for review to the Judge Advocate General, but he acts as an appeal court in secret. All that we shall be doing in setting up the courts martial appeal court is to bring the appeal proceedings into the light of day. That we surely ought to do, and why should that depend upon what the view of the Navy may be?
Furthermore, as the Minister of Defence and the Secretary of State for War will recollect, halfway through our proceedings we sent an interim series of recommendations to the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air. Among those recommendations was one that the Judge Advocate General should cease to retire with the court when the court was considering its findings. That was a unanimous recommendation. There was some delay in its acceptance and in its implementation by both those Services. There are strong rumours to the effect—which I would like the Minister of Defence either to confirm or to deny—that the delay was because the Admiralty were in strong opposition to that proposal, which opposition was, however, eventually overborne.
There is today a strong feeling among persons interested in this matter that it is the Admiralty, the most conservative of institutions, who are in opposition to the recommendations of the Lewis Committee and who would prefer, if they could achieve it, that nothing whatever should be changed in the Navy in the matter of judicial proceedings. I know that anyone who served on this Committee ought to try to rid himself of the feeling that all the recommendations of his colleagues and himself ought to be implemented. But there remains a strong suspicion that the Navy are reactionary in the matter of legal reform.
I say nothing more about the other recommendations, but I feel that the recommendation we made as to the setting up of a court martial appeal court ought not to be delayed until the further report from the Pilcher Committee is obtained. Let no one think that the inquiry by the Pilcher Committee will be a short and easy one. We had an idea of that sort when we started the inquiry into the Army and Air Force. It was not right. A lot of work went into our report and a lot of time was consumed in the investigations which preceded it, and that certainly will be so in the inquiry into the Navy. Whether that be right or wrong, however, I can conceive no ground of reason upon which the court martial appeal court should be denied to the Army and the Air Force because of some view which the Admiralty may form in regard to the Navy.
After all, if the three Services should be treated alike, why was not the Navy included in the terms of reference of the Lewis Committee? That was not done because—and I believe this to be sound—there were fundamental differences in the traditions and conditions of service in the Navy which would make it wrong automatically to apply the same forms of justice and the same legal procedure to the Navy as obtain in the other two Services. But that all emphasises that there is no logic, no reason and, I believe, no justice, in delaying the granting of the court martial appeal court to the Army and the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not propose tonight to express any opinion on the recommendations made by the Lewis Committee because this is not the occasion to debate those recom-


mendations. We have not as yet had any opportunity of doing so. I should have hoped that we would have had a proper opportunity. The occasion for this Debate, which I am glad the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) has raised, is the announcement of the Minister of Defence today which means, that, whether the Government accept one or all of the recommendations of the Lewis Committee, no effect will be given to those recommendations for an indefinite and, almost certainly, prolonged period.
I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman's announcement was received with astonishment throughout the whole House, and also with dismay. I myself was a little astonished that we were not told by the Secretary of State for War to what extent the recommendations of the Lewis Committee were accepted as suitable for the Army, and by the Secretary of State for Air as to what extent they were acceptable to the Air Force. No information of that kind has been given to us. It may be that they are not allowed to tell us, and it may be that the reason the right hon. Gentleman made the announcement, and not the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air, was because he is the gentleman who is taking this course of preventing any changes being made in the court martial systems as recommended by the Lewis Committee.
We are told that this has now to wait until another court martial committee has considered the problem of the Navy and reported. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman, when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, appoint his own committee? If it occurred to him in 1946—and it should have done—that the terms of reference of the Lewis Committee were widened to include consideration of the naval system, why did he not take steps to see to it then? That Committee appointed on 4th November, 1946, worked hard I have no doubt, and reported on 13th April, 1948. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will remember that I have pressed him more than once for publication of that report, always without any success. It was not until January, 1949, that this report was presented to Parliament. We ought to be told what was happening between April, 1948, and January, 1949. Was this report only being considered by the Army and

the Air Force, or were the Admiralty, brought into consultation as soon as this report was presented?
Now we are told that any implementation has to be postponed until this new Committee has reported. I think the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) put in a simple form the relevant questions which demand answers. We ought to be told to what extent these recommendations are accepted by the Air Force and the Army as desirable for those Services. We ought to be given an opportunity of debating the report as it applies to those Services. We ought to be told, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has said, whether in the view of the Government it is possible to apply those changes before applying similar changes, if they are desirable, to the Navy.
In my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman has given no satisfactory explanation of the postponement of the announcement of the decision of the Government as to these recommendations for the Army and the Air Force. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman, sitting there at ease, is saying to himself, "Thank God we have a Navy," and thinking that it will save him a lot of trouble in defending the rejection of some of these provisions. If one considers the possibility that the new Committee may take as long in presenting its report as the Lewis Committee, though it may work equally hard, if one considers that there may be quite as long a period after the signing of that report before it is presented to Parliament, then, indeed, it makes the prospect of implementation of any of these recommendations remote indeed, and not likely to occur in the course of this Parliament.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is not the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman has found himself without support in any section of the House. On another occasion he gave way to the opinion expressed by the House. The best advice I can give him tonight is to think again and not to use the Navy as a pretext for dodging the issues raised by the Lewis Committee.

10.1 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I recognise at once, of course, the position taken up by a large number of Members of the House on the importance of this question of the administration of justice in the Services. I am well aware that hon. Members, both since they have been Members and, some of them, before they were Members, have taken a very keen interest in this matter and have worked zealously for reforms of the character which they desire. I recognise, too, that the Lewis Committee, which sat from November, 1946, until April, 1948, did quite a remarkable job and I should like to join with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) and other hon. Members in paying a tribute to the work which the Lewis Committee carried out.
I must repel the idea, which seems to be abroad in the House, that in some way or other I personally am responsible for the basis upon which the Lewis Committee was set up and for the absence at that time of terms of reference which would include all three Services. That certainly was not so. When the announcement was made in the House I was not then the Minister of Defence, and I had no part in or responsibility for the setting up of the Committee at that time with terms of reference confined only to the Army and the Air Force.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Could not the right hon. Gentleman at that time have set up a committee to consider the problem in relation to the Navy?

Mr. Alexander: I dare say such a committee might have been set up at that time. I am about to explain why, I think, the decision was taken at that time although it was not taken by me.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Mr. W. J. Brown rose——

Mr. Alexander: I have listened carefully to every Member who has spoken and I hope the House will give me a reasonable opportunity of stating my own case, but I am quite prepared to give way.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I want to put this very direct question to the Minister if he will allow it. Was the Minister, then First Lord of the Admiralty, consulted in 1946 whether the Navy should be within or outwith the scope of the operations of the Lewis Committee and. if he was, what reply did he give?

Mr. Alexander: It would be difficult to say exactly how that was dealt with then because in that particular year I was absent from London for most of the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I was
actually absent from London, in India and in charge, for a large part of the time, of the British Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in the Autumn of 1946. I do not recollect exactly how this matter was handled but I will say this: there is no doubt that it was in the minds of those dealing with the matter at that time that there were different circumstances in the Navy. In fact, the House knows, especially the legal Members—I refer especially to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan)—that the very existence of the separate Naval Discipline Act, which has been maintained for such a large number of years on a separate basis, is evidence of the different circumstances in the Navy.
I would also say in defence of the Navy position, about which I know something, having been in the First Lord's chair for nearly nine years, that in regard to the administration of justice, through courts martial or otherwise, in the Royal Navy, there were singularly few complaints compared with those which arose in regard to the other Services largely, I think, because in the Navy there was a much higher percentage of cases dealt with on a summary basis, instead of being the subject of long delays which often occurred in setting up courts martial in the other Services.

Mr. Paget: Is that not a case for dealing with the other Services?

Mr. Alexander: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will allow me to continue. The criticisms were mainly directed at the system in the Army and the Royal Air Force at that time. I am giving the reasons why I think the Committee was not set up on a three-fold basis in 1946. Certainly on the basis of the report of the Oliver Committee, it was not at all certain in 1946 that the Report would make such fundamental recommendations and changes as are covered by the three main questions which were referred to tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. Looking at the matter now, I think it might possibly have been better to have


covered all three Services in setting up the Committee of Inquiry in 1946. But there was very little criticism which I heard at the time of the way in which the Committee was set up then. Now, from the point of view of the Minister of Defence, the situation as it now exists has to be dealt with by the Government on the basis of getting the largest amount of agreement and co-relation between the three Services on this important question of justice in the Services, and the recommendations of the Lewis Committee on these three major questions must now be examined from the point of view of whether they should also apply in the Navy.
May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford that there is no reason why the Pilcher Committee, which I announced this afternoon, should take anything like the same period of time to examine this matter as the Lewis Committee. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) asked why there should be completely similar terms of reference. I gave no such answer on terms of reference this afternoon. I said there would be a similar composition and equal authority as the Lewis Committee but certainly the terms of reference can and, I believe, will be drawn up with the legal advice we get so as to eliminate much of the work which would otherwise fall to the Pilcher Committee on the basis that the work has been covered by the Lewis Committee in respect of the other Services. In fact many of the recommendations of the Lewis Committee have been put into operation, or are about to be put into operation, by administrative action by the Army and the Royal Air Force, and some were already in existence in the case of the Royal Navy before the Lewis Committee was appointed, and others are now being applied administratively by the Royal Navy. This may well mean that the questions left for the Pilcher Committee to consider will be of a more limited character, so that there is no reason at all why there should be any such prolonged delay or period of waiting before putting the final decisions into operation, as suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller).

Mr. E. Fletcher: Could my right hon. Friend give any indication of the date

when he expects to receive the report of the Pilcher Committee?

Mr. Alexander: That would be exceedingly difficult. I am certain that any hon. Member with long experience of these legal matters will agree that it is exceedingly difficult for a Minister to commit a learned judge who is to undertake the conduct of a committee like this to a date. I am quite certain in my mind that it need not be a prolonged period. I believe that Mr. Justice Pilcher has perhaps not to devote quite so much time to circuit work as Mr. Justice Lewis had perforce to give at the time the other committee was working. That would probably be helpful in saving time in regard to this committee.
Then it was suggested by one hon. Member that this step might lead to such delay that reform, when finally decided upon by the Government, on consideration of the reports, would not be applied in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is quite out of the question. I wish to assure the House that the report of the Pilcher Committee will be expedited in every possible way, subject to the proper consideration of these important matters as they apply to the Royal Navy, and that when the report is received urgent consideration will be given to it by the Government; decisions will be taken and there will be no delay in putting them into operation.
I would say, however, that many of the other recommendations which so much affect the ordinary life of those who are subject to justice in the Services, and which were brought out by the Lewis Committee, either have been or are being put into operation now by administrative action.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would clear up a point of doubt which is in my mind? Is he intending to tell the House that 10 months after the receipt of this Report with regard to the Army and Air Force, he has not yet settled the terms of reference for the naval Committee? Has he yet to settle the terms of reference?

Mr. Alexander: I did not say that. I have not the terms of reference before me tonight, but in regard to the setting up of a Committee of this kind I am sure the hon. Member would agree that


those terms of reference should be drawn up with the help of our legal advisers. That has certainly been done in this connection.
I beg my hon. Friends especially to remember one thing. It is apparently assumed—I do not want to enter into a debate on the merits of each one of the main points which have been under discussion—that the Government ought to say here and now that they accept in principle every one of these main recommendations. That was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) in a question he put to me this afternoon. It has been strongly hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. In fact, it is not the case that the issues are so clear cut as that in the case of every one of these recommendations.
Take, for example, the difficulties that might arise and upon which, of course, a decision must be taken at the political level with regard to unanimity. A good many problems of administration arise in connection with the effect of that kind of alteration within the Services. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said that he had had a good deal of experience of courts martial, I presume as a prosecuting or defending officer. He will know quite well that if we had a system operating in which we required, in accordance with the Lewis Committee's recommendation, complete unanimity in each court martial. either for finding a man innocent or guilty, this might lead to a series of reconstituted courts martial in a particular case, and, especially in war time, if there was no unanimity at two or even three succeeding trials, tremendous administrative difficulties would be created. That is the sort of point which has to be considered very carefully indeed.

Mr. Swingler: The right hon. Gentleman is now producing arguments against the major recommendations of the Lewis Committee. There may be arguments which may be produced by the Minister about the difficulties of implementing some of those recommendations, but surely it is possible for the right hon. Gentleman and the Service Ministers to say whether they regard those recommendations in relation to the Army and Air Force as desirable or not, without first finding out whether they are desirable in the Navy. I cannot understand

why it should be necessary to find out whether the reforms are desirable in the Navy in order to decide if they are desirable in the Army. It should be possible for the Minister to say that the Government accept these recommendations in principle although it may take time to put them into effect.

Mr. Alexander: In the view of the Government it is essential that the Pilcher Committee should examine these points without being told in advance that the Government have accepted them in respect of the other Services. If they were told that, it would settle the matter very largely for the Pilcher Committee before they sit. That Committee should look at this matter from the point of view of the Royal Navy without there having been a definite commitment beforehand by the Government on these points.

Mr. Swingler: The Minister himself said this afternoon that the situation in the Navy was different. We accept that the circumstances in the Navy are different and that that Service is governed by a different Act. Surely, that means that it is possible for the Pilcher Committee to inquire independently into the particular and different circumstances in the Navy without being at all prejudiced by the fact that the Government have decided that in the Army certain principles and reforms are necessary.

Mr. Paget: If the Pilcher Committee have to go over the work of the other Committee to see whether its decisions are right, why should the job of the Pilcher Committee be any shorter than that of the Lewis Committee?

Mr. Alexander: The job of the Pilcher Committee will be shorter because it will deal with a more limited field of inquiry than that dealt with by the Lewis Committee.
In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Stafford, I would say that on such matters as the court of appeal, civilian presidents of courts martial and the question of unanimity, it is obvious that if we were to say as a Government that we had decided in favour of those three items as recommended by the Lewis Committee before the matter is referred to the Pilcher Committee, then the inquiry by the Pilcher Committee in the case of the Navy would be prejudiced in advance.

Mr. Swingler: I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that he said in his reply this afternoon that, owing to the wide differences between the circumstances of life and service in the Navy and the other two Services, it was considered advisable to confine the remit of the Lewis Committee to the other two Services. That was the reason he produced this afternoon why the Lewis Committee inquired only into the Army and Air Force. I cannot understand how he can now produce the argument that proposals for the Army and Air Force cannot be accepted because that would prejudice what a Committee might decide to do about the Navy, where he says that there are such wide differences of circumstances and conditions of service.

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend may disagree with my view on the matter. He is perfectly entitled to do that, but it would obviously create prejudice in advance in the consideration of the fundamental principles which are to be inquired into by the Pilcher Committee in respect of the Navy. It is essential in my view that, as far as possible, the principles of the administration of justice for the Services shall be common to all three. I am very anxious that it should be so and it is because of the situation which has arisen that I am doing my level best to see that we can have, as nearly as possible, a common basis of administration of justice in the Services.

Mr. Donovan: May I interrupt to put a point of substance? I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, who has been very long-suffering this evening. The administration of justice in the Army and Air Force falls to a great extent on the legally qualified staff of the Judge Advocate General's Department. They have to send out the Judge Advocates, they have to review all the proceedings of courts martial. Those people have no security of tenure at all at the present moment. Their future is quite uncertain. It is most important that we get good people with some prospects in that Department. If the recommendations of the Lewis Committee were adopted, they would have that security and those prospects because there would be set out an establishment for the Department. Without that, those people will drift away from the Judge Advocate-General's Department and until they get some

security of tenure we shall not get the right people in the Department. I submit that makes it most important that the Pilcher Committee should report without delay.

Mr. Alexander: I can assure the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester that the report of that Committee will be expedited as much as possible. What is more, I shall do my level best to see that the decisions of the Government are reached in time to get what legislation may be required in the course of this Parliament. I want hon. Members to understand that that is the outlook of my Service colleagues and myself on the matter and that we hope to see that the timetable I have referred to is achieved.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I ask a question on procedure? Suppose the Pilcher Committee reports on certain recommendations and those recommendations would appear to prejudice what has already been found acceptable in the Lewis Committee's Report. Are we to understand that the Lewis Committee will re-examine the position in the light of what the Pilcher Committee has done and that then the Government will reconsider the reconsiderations of the Lewis Committee? That might very well occur.

Mr. Alexander: The Government are perfectly clear as to their intentions on the procedure. When the Pilcher Committee's recommendations are received the Government will review them, together with those which remain outstanding on the Lewis Committee, and they will come to decisions as to what is to be done. That is the procedure which will be followed. I can assure hon. Members, therefore, that they need not be anxious about it. I sympathise with them in what they have said about the delays which have taken place. I regret those delays very much. I wish that an agreement could have been reached earlier, in the course of the last few months, but as a result of the procedure now adopted we shall reach a position where we can come to a common decision on behalf of the three Services.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.